Piyadasi

As far as the texts I know, chiefly the Pali Canon, one of the most central themes is that the Buddha will definitely not come back. In fact one of the core ideas is that, as you say, there are many high levels of achievement where you gain relative freedom from Samsara, even for extremely long times but eventually you'll have to come back - but the historical Buddha is someone who found a total release from even that(and he teaches that total release). There is some debate, especially in later texts, whether his disciples, who are usually called Arahants as opposed to Buddhas, and are also depicted as gaining total release on attaining that level - whether they have to come back in the future and become Buddhas. This is just from my past readings of these texts, could be wrong.

@freeform Perhaps a somewhat random question, but seeing as how Blood nourishing is really important to Neigong, the question came to my mind: Is actual blood a 'super-food' for blood? And if so how to consume it 🙏

What an odd, almost unsettling idea, that a master like this could experience 'you' more deeply than you yourself do (ie. your full karma, unconscious, etc. what we normally don't even know ourselves)... 🤯

Well, I did take it from him Just keep practicing, keep trying, developing, I'm sure you'll find it. I also realized it was an error when I noticed the same thing, that it was almost as if my heels were lifting off the ground.

There is a way to have the weight pressurize the front of the feet without you falling forward, it has to do with the manipulation of the kua/pelvis region. I have noticed this error in my practice as well, leaning forward in a way that was not helpful, almost doing a “calf raise” as you say, then found that putting the weight forward was not the issue, but the how of doing it was.

@freeform Thank you for elaborating on all this, I didn't look as deeply into this as I wanted to so far. I had no idea bananas and tomatoes were cold, not just cool, for example. I'm wondering if bananas+oats make cool, adding something like cinnamon would make it neutral? And adding more, say chilies , would make it warm? So can you theoretically keep altering the overall quality like this? But I guess this where it comes in that too many ingredients confuse the digestion and make it more difficult or perhaps 'damage' the overall energetic makeup of the dish? I also wonder with the idea that the DT will help discern what is good for you to eat... I feel like that must be something that is affected by how you view food, whether you have an addiction or something you like a lot, preferences like that, it will presumably cloud your body's ability to make it clear for your mind (so to speak)? Any favorite European/Middle-eastern (for sake of ingredient accessibility) style recipes btw ?

I don't quite agree with your points, but as far as I understand Milarepa's story there has to be made a disclaimer on this one in particular. I believe the texts make a point of saying that Milarepa was a practitioner of magic essentially, they'd probably call it black magic. The more properly yogic practice he learned later from Marpa and his lineage. There is a distinction in the type of Siddhi after he became a yogic sage. Most traditions, as far as I know, make a big distinction in the type of 'borrowed power' or the type of power that entangles you in more karma, coming from magic and shamanism, and the type coming from internal cultivation, even if sometimes results can seem similar from the outside in some things. Just my 2 cents on this point.

Do they not? Then why is virtually every great sage of the past said to have had a variety of incredible siddhis? I'm only more or less familiar with Buddhism, but by dharma tradition, I suppose you include that. Starting from the Buddha himself, and his closest disciples, virtually all of them are said to have 'psychic' powers. Even Sariputta the archetypal sage of the Wisdom aspect of training has them in plenty. Then a few generations down you have people like Upagupta and his disciples (3rd centruy BCE). In the Mahayana you have the great scholar/philospher Nagarjuna... who btw. is associated with Nagas(Dragon power), and external alchemy and in some sources is said to have lived ~300 years. All of these powers show up as fairly key elements in the lives of Asvaghosa, Fotudeng, Asanga as well (1st - 4th century CE.). In the Theravada you have Buddhaghosa (or other similar commentary writers from that tradition) who writes extensively about how powers are a result of mastering Jhana practice, in modern times you have the Thai forest tradition which is not even slightly associated with esoteric, 'yogic' or energetic practices(at least by the public), yet virtually all of the great masters are said to have one power or another. I doubt I even have to mention the Vajrayana lineage of the 84 mahasiddhas or of people like Milarepa, Padmasambhava and so on. And these are just the people who were famous enough to have enough texts written about them that they actually survived and permeated into the public. Funnily enough I only had trouble finding accounts of these miracles from later Chinese/Japanese masters, maybe the state control there made them a bit shy about stuff like this, or maybe my quick search was not adequate feel free to drop them in if anyone has any. I have heard this narrative quite a few times within Buddhism as well, but when you look at the actual lives of the great sages... it's almost as if the tradition is pointing to something here... in my opinion.

Since you mention Buddhism and this is thread about Buddhism it seems, it might be worth considering that according to the teachings found in the Pali Suttas(at least from what I remember reading), the non-dualistic perspective is not considered realized either. The Buddha mentions that the highest form of non-dualism is abiding in the Formless Jhana of the Infinitude of Consciousness. There are 2 (or 3) 'higher' formless Jhanas (traditionally), then there's more after that as well on the way to enlightenment, etc. I also remember reading that the Buddha says that people who 'only' (lol) got as far as completely transforming their very being so after death they are 'reborn' on the 'level' of one of the Formless Jhanas have essentially missed the mark as far as attaining the final goal goes, and (traditionally) he laments that his earlier teachers ended up there since he can't reach them for a very very long time, even psychically in those states to help complete their path. (I'm sure it can't be that bad tho haha) - This is just what I remember from the texts, certainly not an issue I understand or have any experience with really.

Really? Amazing. I always find it... astonishing when you or someone else with similar experience talks about all the crazy schools and methods that you came across during your travels. Like how on earth people come up with this shit? Hahaha I guess I'm fortunate that I didn't get lost in these twisted byways and side-roads. Sad and hilarious at the same time. Appreciate your posts always friend 🙏

Yikes, which school though specifically? Just so I can steer way clear of them.

It seems like a waste to even reply, but if you think "2 trillion dollars a year" is an amount of money that would be "not worth" genuine spiritual teachings, then I feel sorry for you because you have never encountered and been able to recognize anything genuine within this path. If it was 200 quadrillion it would still not equal the value of these things as far as I'm concerned.

I'm gonna share a little anecdotal story of what happened to me recently. It's nothing more than anecdotal keep in mind. Basically I've been noticing for a while(a few months now) that I've developed a little bit of a belly. Nothing serious, I'm not fat, average weight I think, I used to be somewhat underweight actually. That boy was just getting a little thick, little chubby down there. My appetite went up seriously as I was getting more and more into Neigong. So I decided, I will cut out dinners from now on, that should adjust things back to normal a little. My belly disappeared in just 3 days of cutting out only dinner. A week-ish at most. I wasn't even very strict about it, only other thing I did was dial down my use of butter and olive oil. It is now at a normal/somewhat over 'thin' level, I guess. Keep in mind that I train fairly seriously (4-5hrs daily) Neigong proper mostly. Now I don't actually know what it is/was. Maybe I practiced a bit incorrectly to develop a bit of a big belly, or maybe it's the pelvic tilt/tightness in sacrum(which I have also been more seriously looking at this week), maybe it's something completely unrelated or just my own perception playing tricks. (In fact I'd love to get some feedback from @freeform whether this seems possible) Other than as an advertisement for !!my new $5000 dollar guaranteed 3-day weight-loss program!!, 100% money back guaranteed, maybe serious cultivators could take this as a possible word of warning, proceed with caution when combining fasting + serious energy work!

I don't want to really derail this thread anymore, but this is getting into a rather semantic debate. The various early schools already debated this ad nauseam. You might be familiar with the debates between the Vibhajyavadins, Sarvastivadins, Dharmaguptakas and the Mahasamghikas (and others), who all had different ideas about exactly how omnipotent/omniscient/transcendent or not the Buddha was. Debates such as, is the Buddha fully omniscient in every second, holding the knowledge of the entire universe in his mind or does he have to make an effort to access omniscient knowledge is not much interest to me. It is a little ridiculous to conjecture about a mind like that... This is why I said practically omniscient and omnipotent, within the laws of reality. Which, if we go by the texts, he was undeniably held to be. I have no further interest in this debate, this thread is about something else.

So are we all You quoted the texts, so I thought you might be interested to see your position was not actually supported by them.

The Buddha was held to be omnipotent in the same way, as I believe, @freeform was using the word omnipotent for the Enlightened being he met. Ie. being capable of everything that one can be capable of within the laws of reality. Having all powers and higher capacities and so on. The Buddha was held to have had all the powers that a being of any sort could ever have, there were no limitations on his power other than the laws of reality(not the laws that we understand necessarily). Frankly I think some of the later Mahayana sutras imagine his powers to be a little ridiculous (being able to put entire universes into each pore of his body is one such example...), the earlier texts give a little more sensible description, even if it's still astounding and more or less fits the description of omnipotent to all intents and purposes, but who am I to say. " Having been one he becomes many; having been many he becomes one. He appears. He vanishes. He goes unimpeded through walls, ramparts, & mountains as if through space. He dives in and out of the earth as if it were water. He walks on water without sinking as if it were dry land. Sitting crosslegged he flies through the air like a winged bird. With his hand he touches & strokes even the sun & moon, so mighty & powerful. He exercises influence with his body even as far as the Brahma worlds. " ...and many more are listed as well. But if I misunderstand his meaning I'd be eager to learn more.

But an Arahant is not omniscient or omnipotent, according to classical texts, at least. Only a Buddha is fully omniscient/omnipotent. But at the same time, according to the texts, an Arahant is free from the cycle of rebirth. But according to some later texts, an Arahant will have to practice for the completion to Buddhahood, even if he's not really taking 'birth' at that point... But others disagree with that. You could also equate Celestial Immortality with Non-return-ship, for example... I find this quite confusing... I guess it's only appropriate with the hardest thing imaginable any existence could ever hope to accomplish. Are there perhaps different levels of omniscience? That doesn't really make sense to me.

I see, thank you. Very interesting question to me. So this tendency would carry on into the next life then I assume? Even if you don't act out of line with virtue, would there be a danger that you might in the next life? That's why completing certain processes in the life you started them in is important? Am I understanding this point right? Is there a way of working that still gets to the highest goals but doesn't contain these dangers? If yes, are these the older styles of practicing that are not really 'tantric' in nature? Though it seems even without direct energy work, just from concentration the danger also does arise.. so maybe not.

This is pretty interesting and strange. Could you expand on this a little more? Is it like... more Qi = more potential for the acquired mind/defilements to get out of control? Or is there more/something else? I have heard it from Buddhist teachers that those who develop concentration to a high degree but later neglect virtue face a great danger. Is this a similar idea? Wouldn't this be an erroneous way to practice then? I have also heard Damo say, I'm pretty sure, you can't go really deep into Alchemy without virtue/strong moral compass. But he also said that this can break down I think... Maybe I misunderstood though.

I feel absolutely messed up after anything longer than that. Not sure what it is, or why but I feel groggy and out of balance. If you hit the time right and maybe even don't fall fully asleep it can be really useful sometimes.

These distinctions are explained in the Dana Sutta (https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN7_49.html ) as follows, listing subtler and subtler motivations (I'll shorten it a bit for reading): “Having given this gift seeking his own profit—with a mind attached (to the reward), seeking to store up for himself... he reappears in the company of the Four Great Kings. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a returner, coming back to this world. “Then there is the case of a person who gives a gift not seeking his own profit, not with a mind attached (to the reward), not seeking to store up for himself, nor (with the thought), ‘I’ll enjoy this after death.’ Instead, he gives a gift with the thought, ‘Giving is good.’ He gives his gift ...he reappears in the company of the Devas of the Thirty-three. ...he is a returner... ...he gives a gift with the thought, ‘This was given in the past, done in the past, by my father & grandfather. It would not be right for me to let this old family custom be discontinued’… on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the Devas of the Hours. ... he is a returner... …he gives a gift with the thought, ‘I am well-off. These are not well-off. It would not be right for me, being well-off, not to give a gift to those who are not well-off’ …he reappears in the company of the Contented Devas. ...he is a returner... …he gives a gift with the thought, ‘Just as there were the great sacrifices of the sages of the past—Aṭṭhaka, Vāmaka, Vāmadeva, Vessāmitta, Yamadaggi, Aṇgīrasa, Bhāradvāja, Vāseṭṭha, Kassapa, & Bhagu—in the same way will this be my distribution of gifts’…he reappears in the company of the Devas who Delight in Creation. ...he is a returner... …he gives a gift with the thought, ‘When this gift of mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise’ …he reappears in the company of the Devas Wielding power over the creations of others. ...he is a returner, coming back to this world... ...he gives a gift with the thought, ‘This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind.’ He gives his gift... “Having given this, not seeking his own profit, not with a mind attached (to the reward), not seeking to store up for himself, nor (with the thought), ‘I’ll enjoy this after death,’ —nor with the thought, ‘Giving is good,’ —nor with the thought, ‘This was given in the past, done in the past, by my father & grandfather. It would not be right for me to let this old family custom be discontinued,’ —nor with the thought, ‘I am well-off. These are not well-off. It would not be right for me, being well-off, not to give a gift to those who are not well-off,’ —nor with the thought, ‘Just as there were the great sacrifices of the sages of the past—Aṭṭhaka, Vāmaka, Vāmadeva, Vessāmitta, Yamadaggi, Aṇgīrasa, Bhāradvāja, Vāseṭṭha, Kassapa, & Bhagu—in the same way this will be my distribution of gifts,’ —nor with the thought, ‘When this gift of mine is given, it makes the mind serene. Gratification & joy arise,’ —but with the thought, ‘This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind’—on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahmā’s Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world. - It seems to me all kinds of motivations are good, but the subtler and more selfless we can become the more it will align with spiritual attainment.

It also reminds me of a saying in Theravada, I can't remember whether it's in the Canon or just something the Thai Ajahns say. "If laypeople come to learn from you, teach them just enough that they go away." But everyone is an "Ajahn" nowadays after a few books and dharma talks...

@freeform Thank you for sharing this amazing story with your teacher!

@dwai So according to you, you have already realized this nature and have been freed from the cycle of rebirth. If I understand correctly, you've said this in past threads. Apparently there is nothing left to be done for you correct? Why not just end your life then? (Not saying you should, definitely not!) Genuine question, if there is no more clinging, craving and ignorance, are you at this point motivated by absolute pure compassion? Can you honestly say that you only act solely for the benefit of others with no concern for yourself, as there is nothing to be concerned about? Can you honestly say that you are an immeasurable field of merit for the world as they classically say of an Arahant or Ariya? Past accounts of Arahants I've read about, they usually do one of these things after they are truly freed from rebirth: They either relinquish their life and die a short while after (there is an account of one Arahant self-immolating through his meditation on the fire element for example); they go into a permanent completely secluded retreat and maybe just live their life out in Jhana or go into stasis and wait for the next Buddha or maybe teach non-human beings, frankly I'm not sure; or more commonly they spend the whole remainder of their lives as teachers for the benefit of others. Do you fall into the last category then? Or am I just wrong according to you?

Dwai 1 millisecond after writing this post: