Forestgreen

But with robes, not hats. Or, is there a funny hat with the robe?

Take over the brand, sell new stuff, classic strategy.

Of course, borat dude were ordained... But, really, I actually agree on this. If one want to use a brand name, one should stick to the rules and stay true to the brand. Or start a new tradition.

I believe, since reforms often are politically motivated, that some practices were highly unencouraged. Paul Dennison writes that his teacher didn't dare to teach jhana openly, because the reformed theravada tradition didn't approve. But, he also relates jhana to yogavacara, so technically not theravada?

In this case, it would be my post four hours ago.

A proven ability to fajin makes the storyteller more believable though. Which technically disqualifies me, unless we discuss physiology which is within my area.

Noone would disagree with this statement.

An olympic level weight lifter has a lot if muscle strength. Any fajin in that? Are most taiji practitioner saying they focus on the gym, or are they saying they are focusing on sensitivity, timing, stuff like that? Stuff relevant for, lets say, relevant areas in the brain that have to optimize their function?

Based on descriptions of the phenomenon and the practices that lead to the ability, the premotor cortex would be the first area to look in to. It is highly connected to sensorysomatic cortex, and the combination of increased sensory sensitivity (which taiji develops) and a lowered threshold of activation is known to create muscle jerks. Add the taiji bodywork to that, and you have at least a hypotetis that is testable and falsably (not sure if that is the correct word).

Matter = information?

How does one separate this from methods that create physical changes, but have little-to-none effect on other levels?

Just for arguments sake, I think it always becomes complicated in real life. How did the first sangha practice? We do not know. A theravadin would say that the satipatthana sutta is orthodox, describing core samma sati methods. A theravadin might look at my alchemical process and say that it is a later development. And I would say that the beginner and intermediate steps of my practice are not found in the suttas (isn't it so that only two or three asanas are mentioned?), but the actual transformational work is clearly outlined in the satipatthana sutta ( I just checked that up). I could easily copy the relevant passage, and name the alchemical process that it describes. Now, having practiced some and shallowly discussed this with a student of one of the reformed modern vipassana traditions, our understanding of that chapter differed. The difference is outlined in the theravada abhidhamma (I seems to be referring quite a lot to that basket), so both interpretations are correct but on two different levels (basically, the two truths, a concept that aeems to be accepted in buddhist circles). The problem here would be that the suttas are thought to be older, coming directly from the Buddha, while the abhidhamma texts are derived from them. A later development. One of the three baskets, but a later development and because of that heretic in the view of the reformist? Thats quite a few theravadin that are not theravadin, because each and any development after the pali cannon becomes problematic in that regard. The method I use contains a mudra. No visualizations, no weird breathing patterns, just a mudra to aid the shift in awareness. All mudras do that. Are only mudras mentioned in the suttas orthodox enough for a reformed theravadin? I can totally agree that teachers add stuff, generation by generation, and sooner or later the methods tend to be encumbered with so much bling that attach to them that they lose their edge. The hard part with a reform is: What to remove? What is bling ( causing attachment) and what is development (aiding the spiritual process). There is a bodywork method in use in my neck of the woods. Developed in the 80-ties and 90-ties, and as the developers got older they started to cement the theoretical base and the practices. No new theory allowed. But it is 2024, we know more about the mechanisms behind bodywork. So practitioners and teachers are leaving the organisation. Newer developments are found to be more useful in clinical practice. Isn't it always so? (Sorry, rambling again.)

So, in the days before they were reformed away, would borat dude been considered theravada or a heretic? Not after, because in a political struggle the winner writes the history, but before? Is theravada orthodoxy defined by practice, or by which scriptures one base ones interpretation of reality on? I have only read about the interpretative discussions between different buddhist schools, not about differences in practice. Some of the buddhist alchemical work would fit very well within the frame of dhyana practice and samma sati. Most likely, some practices do not, but those are outside of my direct experience. I believe that some of the reformed methods no longer use dhyana to the same extant. Didn't the buddha teach dhyana? Are dhyana practicing theravada monks heretic? Are theravadin that use the abhidhamma as a support for their practice heretics? They claim support in the suttas, but agree that many of the ideas are later developments. Will the real theravadin please stand up (and join my shaolin sect, it will be fun!). It's getting complicated, and since I do not identify as a theravada buddhist, it really doesn't matter to me. Just flapping my lips in the wind. And quite a few of these "secret" practices are not secret, they appear in publicly available material. It is just that few are taught what they mean, and few bother with practicing them.

If you ask a Bhikkhu trained in a tradition that have no secret practices, because the tradition reformed they away? And the ketchup should contain chili.

That would be my opinion as well. I have energy practices for the beginner and intermediate steps, but now it is mainly about mind/consciousness/awareness. But the intermediate steps were very useful because they help in shifting what I could be aware of. And, proper awareness on the right thing makes the energetic process continue on its own. There is no longer any separation.

That seems to be true for any method.

The reformations are historically documented. The question is if the reforms made the practice return to a more original state, or not. (I do belive that what I do differs from what the original buddhist sangha practiced, but that is my opinion.)

You disagree with those who claim that the above are the result of waves of reformed practice?

Yes, it has been debated, for over a millenia. Gives buddhists something to do between meditation sittings.

Sometimes you have to know the answer in order to see that it is written right before you. With the classic texts, it is often so.

You can find some of it in the abhidhamma texts, if you know what to look for. And quite explicit in some of the tibetan texts, although these might be more recent than the "original teachings" whatever they might be.

I have read the critique...

That looks like a version of the fusion practice from Mantak Chia, also used by JAJ so it is probably a traditional and widespread daoist practice. In the late 90-ties, it gave me mental strain, that's about it. In my view, this is an artificial reconstruction of a process that should occur naturally if onedoesotherstuff correctly, with a focus on what the WuZhenPian tradition calls postheaven energetic dregs instead of doing the primary purpose of the method which is directed at the mind, and seing reality. But I am sure that someone finds the method useful. We are after all different, with different needs and aspirations.

Today, I find this to be slightly to idealistic for my taste, having ended up in the classic buddhist middle point, in this case between idealism and realism.

The flow through Du and Ren? Danmu = True Sperm? True Fire is inside Fire? That is an interesting interpretation of the process and the components in it. I prefer the NeiJingTu model. Is this translated by the same team that translated the other quote from chinese to russian to english?