freeform

There’s another path to spiritual growth that requires no crafting or gardening - and is probably a closer match to the natural unfolding that you’re talking about @Yueya Thats a life of pure service to others. In many ways a more difficult life, but a much simpler one - just always follow the compass arrow pointing towards selfless service. But prepare to give up everything of the self.

While everyone has an intrinsic spiritual nature - everyone also has an intrinsic animal nature. Human nature is this funny dance between our spiritual and animal selves... however it’s been made clear by various unconnected teachers that it’s very much the animal part that drives much of humanity. For Daoists in fact, one does not become a true human until they achieve a stage that’s akin to enlightenment. Zhenren means ‘true human’... anyone who hasn’t attained enlightenment is still tethered by their animal natures. Left to nature the baby grows up, has kids, raises those kids then eventually dies - and comes back as a baby for another round - over and over. That is the natural course. In my experience with Daoists in Asia - none of them think of the process of alchemy as a natural unfolding. It’s in fact counter natural - a kind of reversal. That’s not the view of any of the Daoist masters I’ve come across. However I must say that mathematics gives the wrong connotation. The Daoist cultivator is more akin to a gardener than a craftsman. The craftsman controls and shapes her materials to follow her designs. The gardener creates the right circumstances and conditions for her garden to bloom. But gardening still has right and wrong. Let an invasive weed flower and spread its seeds and you’ll have to deal with the results over countless seasons. Allow water to wash away your topsoil - and you’ll lose all fertility for generations to come. Get enchanted with one plant to the exclusion of all the others and you’ll create the perfect conditions for disease to decimate the garden. This may indeed be test tube spirituality - but way before test tubes were invented... so let’s call it cauldron spirituality instead

I received a question from a DB member about causality... (and it also touches on a topic on another thread regarding complexity...) How did the Daoists come up with Chinese medicine theory? It's not a trial and error thing (like modern medicine) - because it's a holistic model that spans heaven and earth... It came as a flash of insight on the causal level. And this is understandable if you've ever had a similar experience (can happen in deep meditative states beyond samadhi). It's like a flash of insight into the causality that bring the formless into form and form into the formless. This is also how the Yi Jing was discovered too... And of course there is some trial and error involved in working with these models... but the models themselves come from causal insight. That is what is meant by exquisite complexity arising once you're able to absorb into an object fully enough. Though it is a rare experience to be fair...

I think it's worth adding that this isn't the 'mixing and matching' we tend to see. This is the result of causal insight - meaning that it's done by highly advanced people that fully understand the impact of their decisions on the causal level. Not the sort of attitude that's akin to introducing cane toads to Australia.

Correct and incorrect are a major part of these traditions. Daoism for instance, much like Dzogchen it seems, is also very precise. It’s precise in a sort of mathematical way. There’s a correct way to solve a maths problem - and there are countless incorrect ways. When there’s a value judgement added (this view is not only wrong - it’s bad) - this takes a wholly different and unhealthy political turn. There’s a modern mentality that says everything is subjective so everything is right... Or that all paths are the same... But that’s obviously not true. A key either opens a lock or it doesn’t. Fundamentalist religions make this into a political thing. If you don’t operate according to our model then you’re bad/evil/must be punished... Funny enough - by taking spiritual truth and turning it into politics, they’ve already gone off the rails themselves...

Some traditions get stuck with their spiritual logic as a substitute for direct insight... normally evidenced by all the mental gymnastics and semantic trickery that’s necessary. indeed. No separation. Form within formless - and formlessness within form.

It’s quite well known that Daoists appropriated a lot of what they found effective into their model. In fact it could be said that (ironically) most of their body cultivation methods originally came from Buddhism (yi jin jing and xi shui jing classics)... What’s less known is the appropriation of Daoist methods by Buddhists (particularly Chan)

Not a dig at all. You’re very open about your amalgamation of different paths into something quite individual - so why not Dwaism as short? I also am not talking about ‘you’ in particular. ‘You’ in my original message is another way of saying ‘one’. I’m not too concerned about you in particular Indeed. It’s considered an expression or manifestation of Dao. In this way there’s no separation. In the same way that separating the trunk, the branches and the root of a tree - it’s no longer a tree, it’s dead wood. To a Daoist it’s never the case that one is more important than the other. To a more ‘heavenly’ tradition - it may well be the case that heaven is more important than earth. You see the physical as ‘names and forms’. A Daoist sees the formless within the form - and the form within the formless. This is the very basis for alchemy (both internal and external). If you’re adding ‘names’ - that’s a mental abstraction - so you’re moving away from form - and towards the formless. Maybe that’s why you’re confused by complexity? You’re naming instead of being present? Physicality has form but not a name. If you’re naming, you’re no longer on the physical - you’re in your head. Your acquired mind adds the name... try to become aware of too many names and you’ll certainly get confused. Use the type of awareness that doesn’t name - then turn that awareness to an object - then be patient - and exquisite inherent complexity may begin to reveal itself. But start naming - and you’re no longer aware of form - you’re mired in mental abstractions. I can see you believe that

A bit vague I'm not that interested in what you can do - and more interested in what you become. 'The truth' - in Daoist thought - is neither simple nor complex... or rather both. Some paths see the 'heavenly' aspects of reality as the 'truth'... (monotheistic religions - and it seems Vedanta (at least Dwaist Vedanta)) Other paths see 'earthly' aspects of reality as the 'truth'... (various shamanistic traditions - and even certain aspects of science) Daoism sees truth in both - and never one to the exclusion of the other - two poles of one coin. The further you go from physicality, the more 'simple' things are (moving from the outer perimeter inwards - in the diagram below). The closer you get to physicality, the more complex things are (moving from the centre out). That is the nature of heaven and earth - yin and yang. Simple = basic, or uncomplicated in form, nature, or design Complex = consisting of many different and interconnected parts. Which is understandable coming from a Dwaist perspective (not heard who your Vedanta guru is) But to see simplicity as the fundamental truth is to deny one side of the coin (according to Daoist thought.) Every development within one's consciousness has a physical counterpoint in the body - if it doesn't - in Daoist terms, you haven't achieved it - you've just experienced it. In other words: "I'm gonna be rich!": simple actually becoming rich: complex The function of your circulatory system is complex - and it appears to be highly effective - and lets hope for a long time too. If you mean something like micromanaging some process (like walking) - I hope we're both clear that that's not what we're talking about here (at least that's not what I'm talking about)... Of course mentally directing every subtle muscle movement while walking is not the point (if you just want to get somewhere... but if you're studying locomotion or gait analysis - then complexity - or granularity in distinctions is important). What I'm talking about is perception... if you perceive walking as an abstract thought ("walking")- then yes that's a simple concept - it's simple to understand and to communicate to someone who knows about walking. But to deny that there is a very complex process happening - then that's just willful ignorance. YEs - they're concepts. As anything we're discussing here can only ever be. But the concepts are pointing to a tangible reality. If your mind gets scattered when observing complexity, then that's a sign of an untrained mind. Similarly when one's mind is only capable of abstraction and simplicity - or is incapable of abstraction (simplification) - these are major issues requiring the services of a neurologist at the very least.

@Spaceofawareness Id suggest Damo’s online courses. Online learning is not 100% ideal - but several people i respect are getting a lot out of it. Damo is an excellent teacher - everything is explained and nothing is ambiguous.

Getting a non-dual experience requires simplicity. For this to be more than a temporary experience requires complexity (the setting up of various interconnected conditions). To talk of complexity vs simplicity in this way is like saying yin is better than yang... it seems a bit shortsighted.

Becoming aware of what exists is certainly an important early milestone. But much of the subtle (and in fact physical) body required for alchemical practice doesn't exist in the untrained. The true dantien doesn't exist in people. The 8 'extraordinary' channels don't exist in the same way in people. Some paths require reduction others addition - and others require both reduction and addition (that's the Daoist approach). To me that's a nonsensical statement. One could just as easily say that you have an addiction to simplicity.

Actually not a long term practitioner of GF specifically. I only started with that line of work in the last 2yrs. I prefer not to talk about spiritual stuff I'm working on. It's a subtle process - and not to be shared with others (at least that's how I feel about it at the moment). Here's a thread where I go into the results of another (more foundational process): It's spread over several posts as people asked questions...

It’s one of those things where ‘it takes two to tango’... meaning right teacher with the right student. The actual teaching method matters little IMO - what matters is when the teacher wants the student to get it... and the student is prepared to do what it takes. In our modern world there are so many other stimulating things we could be doing that it’s hard to find a student that’s prepared to do a decade of hard work before any of the really magical aspects of these arts start take shape. People say they want it... they get all the right clothes... they look and sound the part... but are they really prepared to for instance learn how to sit still for three hours with no movement? Or stand in wuji while sweating and feeling an intense inner discomfort for an hr? Some are prepared to do this - but they’re the rare ones

No - this isn’t risky in the same way as kundalini. You don’t need kundalini as a prerequisite - but you do need several other internal conditions for it to work. GF is an advanced practice. Not advanced coz it’s hard or complicated or extra powerful. It’s advanced in the sense that you need to have achieved certain preconditions for it to actually work. The preconditions are ‘building the foundation’ (the result of Neigong practice) and various Xin Fa (mind development methods) as well as the ability to sit in unwavering stillness (both body and mind)... This is sufficient to start the practice. However it works most effectively when you’re able to enter meditation (samadhi) and the inner light starts to manifest automatically for you. Id estimate around 5 to 10yrs of dedicated practice to achieve the preconditions necessary. These arts always build one thing on another... As modern people we think in reductionistic ways which means we like to isolate elements and look at them out of context (like the guy in the gym who does leg day and chest day - instead of treating his body as a whole) But these arts are very context dependent. People in the past would not have access to classical texts without someone knowledgeable introducing them to it. This introduction usually happened in a teacher-student relationship - and only when the student was ready to receive it (just like you wouldn’t teach quantum mechanics to school kid who just started learning physics).

I think desires are an absolutely necessary thing for us as human animals... the desires are a major aspect of survival. But when we want access to our spiritual selves, we must drop our animal desires like a butterfly drops it’s chrysalis shell. We don’t drop it coz it’s bad - but because it stops us becoming a butterfly. I think a balanced level of the basic desires is healthy and necessary for non cultivators.

I personally think it’s an actual privilege to be able to help my teacher in some way. My main teacher refuses payment - so I have to get creative in finding ways to benefit him and his family. Why should someone who dedicated their entire life to doing something incredibly difficult and helping thousands of people - end up starving, unable to keep a roof over their heads because someone thinks information should be free? An absolutely ridiculous, parasitic attitude. Worst part is people will use all kinds of semi political justifications for their views - when in reality it’s just simple self-interest and entitlement (I want stuff, I deserve it and I don’t want to pay for it).

I’m not familiar with Qiangfeng - but I’ve either met or trained with the others. I think out of those Damo teaches the most authentic Daoist methods. One of the best teachers teaching openly! I’m also very impressed with Adam Mizener. He teaches taiji and meditation. Also Wang Li Ping and Nathan Brine (his senior western student) - teaches real methods... though missing some key foundational elements from what I can see. Welcome to the forum

Yes In my experience when views are so directly opposite - they’re usually not actually in opposition - just a different facet of the same thing. That’s why I kept pushing for clarity. You clarified when you said you’re looking at complexity from the perspective of learning. I was looking at it as a kind of universal principle. What I call complex I think you described as ‘detailed’... Complex to me means ‘consisting of many different and connected parts.’ Complex has no negative connotation to me. It doesn’t mean difficult. It doesn’t mean chaotic. It means intricately interconnected.

Very much depends on the individual schools. I've come across several that certainly make use of jing/qi/shen. Non-attachment is indeed important... But one can get just as easily attached to the idea of non-attachment as to anything. The skill is not in removing things one can get attached to (otherwise suicide would be the ideal solution) - the skill is in developing equanimity so you can come and go as you please, without getting attached.

Interpretations of interpretations I'm afraid. With interpretations, people can only use their prior knowledge and experience to generate their interpretation... In this case it's understanding of Buddhist methods. Yes - your impression is spot on. The GF deals with a similar 'level' as shakti... it's dealing with a form of Shen Light - a kind of divine light... but it's not stimulating the shakti force at the base of the spine... it's generating light at the centre of the central channel - then working with it in some specific ways.

you mean like yin-yang? Exactly like yin-yang. Yin-yang theory is clearly a mental abstraction. They're mental concepts approximating fundamental principles... The reason it's only approximating is because 'The Dao that can be spoken about is not the eternal Dao". Direct experience of a star filled sky is intricately complex - no methods, no rules, no understanding, no memorisation... Calling it 'sky' - breaking it down into simple component parts - (there's the big dipper) - involves "elaborate rules of understanding, involving extensive memorization, many methods, etc." Breaking the complex down into the simple is a mental process. Very close - but actually the inverse of what you say (known as the Dunning Kruger effect) I find the exact opposite to be the case. So you find that the more expertise someone has, the less nuance and the fewer distinctions they have?? Why would Inuits have more words for snow then? Or are you saying that because these distinctions become instinctive, it subjectively feels simpler? (It's just such a contrarian point of view that I'm trying to understand it) This is a very common attitude in Asia. I think it's a cultural thing more than a protection of one's career. Only 'disciples' ever receive the full tradition... it's just what's happened for many hundreds of years - and so persists. You know what you know... but you don't know what you don't know. Meaning you might know what you've been shown - But you haven't necessarily been shown everything your teacher knows... and you have no way of knowing that unless your teacher has told you... Hence you don't know what you don't know. Another very common attitude in the eastern arts...

Again polar opposite views... Show me some simple principles. Imagine I'm an alien - I've heard about 'simple principles' and I want to see, hear, touch, smell one of these curious things... Well you can't. Principles are a mental creation. Or an insight on the level of consciousness... they're not an apparent 'thing'. It's probably one of the most important things us humans can do (find principles) - but it's clearly in the mind. Complexity on the other hand - it's everywhere... look at anything in nature (no thinking necessary) - and you'll slowly begin to see the exquisite complexity involved. In fact the less thinking - the more the complexity reveals itself. It's thinking that breaks the complex down into the simple... Simplicity in the way you're describing is precisely a mental abstraction. The difference between a seasoned golfer and a novice golfer is exactly the fact that they've developed all of these nuanced distinctions that they then internalise... If they didn't consider any of those things then they would never be able to internalise them and would never become a seasoned golfer.

Great example - another one of those 'fishing is just dangling a lure in water'... but look deeper and you start to see how many distinctions and nuances experienced fishermen develop.

Skill is one of the major aspects of Daoism. The belief is that we require the quality of 'mastery of skill' (gong) for any development. That's one of the major reasons for using martial arts as a method of inner development - it's a great platform for the development of a highly coordinated level of skill in both body and mind.