goldisheavy

So it's really going to throw you for a loop if your assumption -- that the true state of affairs can be categorized simply and conveniently as either real/existing or non-existent/delusional -- is false, eh? This is just a hint. Maybe you can use it in your contemplation. It's not the answer.

It seems logical that if you imagine a space in your belly, your dan tien will go to your belly the exact same way it went into your chest the first time. For me, I don't believe in dan tien at all. I don't visualize it. I think as a mental construct, it's not a good one. If I need to warm up or do some magick, I have better tools than dan tien available to me. Better and safer. So another option might be to stop believing in dan tien altogether. But please don't interpret this to mean that I am telling you what to believe with regard to dan tien. It's up to you. I'm just wondering if you're aware of various options that are available to you. Some people get stuck to some energy layout (and different spiritual traditions have different layouts with different features attributed to them) and believe it is THE truth and that's it. Not so. I pray for good health and good spirits to make complete return to you, if they haven't already.

That's how I see it. Thing is though, the vision has so much depth to it, some "parts" of it are slow to change, some are not, and it's not necessarily the same from person to person and from time to time, but it's very hard to say what the character of the continuum of experience is like. If you understand the full meaning of what it means for experience to be visionary (like, that it doesn't mean it must be fuzzy or airy or short-lived or any such imposed ideas), then yes, it's all a dream and the only limitations are self-imposed intent. The trick is to see and feel the full character of one's own mind. Most people have false understanding of one's own mind. They see it too narrowly and it's too well-defined, and it's taken for granted, kind of like, "oh yea, it's my mind, of course I know what it is and of course it's mine". In reality for most people the truth is closer to "no you don't know what it is, and while you call it 'yours', it's not really working on your behalf, but is operating in a zombie state on behalf of some nebulous headless-monster-like system of crusty and unexamined belief".

I don't know about the program... But look at this: http://www.damo-qigong.net/summar.htm That's great! I say it's well written. It is very hard to put something like that in words, but this is not a bad attempt. It's one version of how immortality is achieved. I would like to talk to someone like that on this forum. I've bookmarked it and will come back for more reading.

I look at meditation from the perspective of not knowing anything. For example, I don't know if there is a system of meridians. Maybe there is. Maybe not. Even if there was, it wouldn't be relevant. What I have is my knowledge and my feelings and not something existential that exists. Maybe there exists some body in some bed, 3 universes away, that's dreaming all this up. So what? How does that affect me now? It doesn't. So I don't consider existential concerns because through insight I see them as non-concerns for me. From this point of view, it's not even important if something is true or false. What's important is how you feel right now, regardless of truth. If I feel great while in truth I am sick, and if that feeling is stable and lasts 100 years, then how does it matter to me that it's not true in some sense? In other words, what is the value of truth? At times you can find that truth has no impact on experience, or perhaps negative impact. And yet, what I am saying is some kind of truth too, and maybe it's not unimportant? Or maybe it is. I am saying this not to give an answer to anything. It's a kind of exploration. It's like you go in a cave and you look around with your flash light. You see, feel, smell things. You hear things. Then you come out of the cave, but there is no cave in your pockets or in your backpack. It's gone, and it's good that it's gone. It would be a disease if you couldn't leave the cave behind right? So it is with contemplative explorations. I explore something and leave it completely behind. Something remains, but I don't know what and can't name it. So, from this frame of mind, meridians are no more relevant than traffic signs or the weather. It might be something you observe, but meditation is not an ordinary involvement with observables. If you massage this or that meridian, even though your observables are subtle, and your actions are also subtle, still, at the fundamental level such meditation does not transcend ordinary action at all. And as such, it is no way to reach true immortality. A lot of these folk are good people in the sense that they are honest, and they don't set out to harm anyone. In fact, they want to help as much as possible. They learn from a tradition and share what they know. But they never question their knowledge. They don't question traditions. In a word, they are not contemplatives. And that's OK. There is room and place for all things. It all depends on what you want. If you want something relative and relatively concrete, like warm hands, there are relative and relatively concrete methods for attaining it. Maybe then meridians can be of use, but also, there are alternative means of attaining warmth that don't involve meridians. But if your goal is to develop transcendent insight, then warm hands are helpful at best, but not essential. At worst, it can be a distraction. It can be a spiritual version of chasing material pleasures, except instead of grosser things we chase subtler things, but the dynamic of chasing is the same one. And chasing in itself is not bad, but it becomes bad if chasing is not what you want and you confuse chasing something for something else. Then it becomes bad. If you intend to chase and you chase, then it's nothing other than wish fulfilling gem at work.

Great thread! I hope people can forgive this slightly self-congratulatory praise (isn't all praise self-congratulatory on some level?)... In day to day life, few or no people have the stamina to remain in a questioning frame of mind. This is why speculative knowledge has such currency. Any knowledge that appears certain, only continues to appear certain as long as you don't question it in a determined manner. As soon as you set your mind to question something in a dogged fashion, nothing can stand up. All certainties fall. And yet, how do we know the difference between questioning and non-questioning? We don't question that, do we? We know for sure when we are questioning. We don't say, "Well, maybe I am questioning that..." So there is a level of certainty at the basis of being itself that transcends inspection. Unfortunately that ultimate basis-certainty is useless to anyone but a mystic, and drawing any relative conclusion from it is wrong. It's a certainty of having seen a picture, but not what any of the elements in the picture mean or how they relate, and how things should or should not be in the picture, etc. It's like a vision seen by a mute. He sees, but can't tell what he sees, because his telling is part of the vision he sees. So you don't need to be a mute, you just need to be honest. If you try to describe correctly what you see, you have to describe your act of describing what you see, and it's a never ending loop. In other words, informational field is always whole and cannot be externalized. In an attempt to externalize it, chunks of important information go missing. But that doesn't mean we must stop what we are doing. It just means we should be careful, mindful and happy. That's my opinion. Us trying to tell each other things is a beautiful thing. As long as we see it as ornamental, it's great. It only causes trouble when we take it beyond ornamentation. So it seems to me. Zhuangzi asks the same question. He asks, "When I speak to you, is it just bits of wind or am I really saying something?" If I remember correctly, he never actually answers his own question, as it often is with Zhuangzi, he likes to ask a question and then leave it hanging in the air.

It's too ornate. The emphasis is placed on sensations rather than the wisdom. However, this meditation is good if you want to have a whiz-bang experience. That said, since some (?) people don't know how to exhale through pores, it may create an energy imbalance, because people will find it easier to inhale than to exhale, etc. In other words, it takes something natural, like breath, and hijacks it into a visualization that depending on your understanding of phenomena (wisdom) is not natural, and thus can be harmful. But that same exact aspect is also the one that may give rise to interesting meditative experiences. So if you like experiences and don't care about wisdom, that's a good meditation.

Those are very different concepts. Assemblage point is something that's shifting around and doesn't have a permanent position. That's not even slightly similar to the "seat of self" idea. It seems like you're picking up a superficial similarity while ignoring deep differences.

It's 3rd street New York City! Just kidding! It's not anywhere within convention. Your experience is not well-tied to convention and so it has no conventional location designator. Now, if you meet with 100's of people and all of you keep having the same experience under similar conditions, you can begin to develop an idea of where that might be, and if you all agree and act consistently with that agreement every time, a convention will change to embrace that new experience as a new kind of conventional space. As more and more people agree it becomes more and more entrenched as a convention. However this entire process is nowhere to be found outside your mind. Conventional and unconventional experiences have the nature of hypnotic phenomena.

I've mentioned Richard Rose a few times. He's a very interesting man. Also, there is a really good free book with his teachings, but it's not easy to find on Google. So here's the link: http://www.onzen.com/atatoc.htm Enjoy! It's a real gem. I can't help myself but to quote some of the truly, truly amazing questions of this amazing contemplator and mystic (from chapter 9): I hope more pie guy sees this too.

Not only can it be applied to enlightenment, but it has to be applied if you want to get enlightened. Someone who is enlightened is beyond fixed viewpoints. The meaning of this is very subtle. It's much more subtle than what you say above. In particular, an enlightened person recognizes all appearances to be mental constructs, but at the same time, does not view oneself to be one of those constructs or all of them NOR does the enlightened person view themselves to be something apart and separate from those constructs, AND an enlightened person can identify with any and all constructs at will AND an enlightened person can identify with no construct at will, knowing that all identifications are temporary (this includes the identification of being something outside all constructs too!). Because even the perception of being beyond constructs is a mental construct in its own right. Enlightenment, not just what's discussed, but the actual enlightenment, nirvana, is a mental construct. Samsara is a mental construct and so is nirvana. I strongly disagree. A big ego is not a sign of anything in particular. Nor is having a pimple a sign of anything. Nor is a missing limb a sign of anything in particular. Now, in our concrete life we experience and rely on signs of all kinds. It can be that in your life you accept that what you call "big ego" (as nonsensical as this idea really is, and you agree it's nonsensical) as a sign of foolishness (non-englightenment). And that's fine. But if you want to be enlightened you must also recognize that all the signs you rely on are empty of self. Meaning, the signs you rely on have no inherent meaning. You imbue them with meaning! If you want, you can reverse the meaning of any sign. For example, you can, if you want, make the big ego be a sign of enlightenment. Easily. The fact that you have this power should tell you that signs are not very reliable. The signs can be relied on ornamentally, for fun, but never for real. In fact, samsaric state can be described as taking the signs for real. Nirvanic state is not taking the signs for real. Both are states of mind and the contents of both states are mental constructs. May you be blessed.

Ok, here's the short story. In psychology, what's considered healthy and what's a disorder is determined by a vote! That's right. Read how the DSM IV manual is made. Second, from the point of view of enlightenment, the "normal" state is a disease. Literally. Because normally people experience lack of ease. An enlightened person has an abundance of ease. So is it any wonder than that normal people may consider enlightened people sick? Because to them sickness is normal and anyone who is not sick is diseased. It's that simple. That's why psychology is a big joke and a pseudoscience. I strongly urge you to read this link and think for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

Well, I don't agree. But what's more, I don't think the size of an ego can be established at all. I mean, how do you measure the size of an ego? I don't think it's possible to say who has a big or small ego. I think Buddha Gotama had an ego the size of the universe and was an asshole of the 10th degree, but still, even with such bad qualities, he managed to spread some wisdom. The people think of him as "selfless" is amazing. I chalk it up to convention. When I look at things from beyond convention, looking at it asking, "Was this necessary or was this an excess?" I find much Buddha Gotama's behavior to be highly excessive, and hence egoistic. But does that make him less interesting or less useful? I am only picking on Gotama because he's very famous and is considered to be almost unanimously to be selfless, but what I am saying is not personal about Gotama. I am saying something general. I think what's important is not so much the size of ego but other qualities. Someone who thinks their ego is small or anyone's ego is small is surely nursing a huge subterranean ego. No doubt about it. So letting the size of the ego bias you is not wise. There must be other angles that you use for evaluation than just ego size. In my life, one of my best ex-friends had an enormous ego. But also, he was the one I learned the most from. Sure, he caused me much heart ache. Eventually I couldn't be his friend anymore. But he's influenced me, in a good way, more than all my "nice" friends combined. Now, that's not to say having huge uncomfortable egos is always good, but I am saying, it can't be the only angle of evaluation. There must be other angles if you want your evaluation to be holistic. It's possible to teach all the same things my ex-friend taught me without the huge ego, but in life you don't always get to choose. Sometimes you take a dish that's healthy and bitter at the same time because that's what you got. Ideally you'd want something healthy and sweet, sure. But you have to measure on more angles than just sweetness alone.

There is nothing like an insult to get your message across. Ok, point taken moron.

They don't ignore it. Nor do they micromanage it.

Hmm.... Ranking the person's abilities without actually knowing the least bit about the person you say? This should give all the smart people a pause.

The problem with Tao Te Ching is two-fold: First, it's a lot more mystical than Chuang Tzu and refers to things in a way that's more puzzling and humorless. At the same time, since Tao Te Ching is written from the POV of trying to describe something, it fails to create an opening if the person holds obscuring beliefs and doesn't feel the flow of the text intuitively. That's the limitation of descriptive method. Second, everyone knows Tao Te Ching. Few know Chuang Tzu. As a teacher, it's your job to give the student a gem and not some common knowledge. If you give your student something that everyone knows, you give them something worthless. If you give them something few know, that's more valuable and contributes more to the diversity of experience and opinion. Diversity is good. Chuang Tzu is a funny text. You can get many laughs by reading it. It's down to earth. And it takes an approach of questioning and description instead of just description alone. The questions that Chuang Tzu raises are far more powerful in terms of the effects on the psyche than anything in Tao Te Ching. Tao Te Ching is like some sage preaching to you from the top of the mountain. Chuang Tzu is like your beer buddy telling you some jokes in a manner that strengthens your wisdom. Chuang Tzu feels like a friend and not like some holier than thou person. That said, Lieh Tzu is also great! It's even more rarely read, and it has fun stories in it. It will grab the attention of the students for sure.

Another way to see the point is to look up at the sky through the straw.

I agree completely. It would be more honest to name these forums "spiritualbums". The name "taobums" is a little deceptive. However, that said, if a person who comes here is not an idiot, they'll understand right away what's what. Even newbies will be able to understand if they apply their mind. If any newbie asks, what are the primary source texts of Taoism and reads those, they'll understand that 80% of tao bums is against those texts! Especially Chuang Tzu. Almost everything being discussed on this forum is contrary Chuang Tzu's message. This doesn't bother anyone, and I don't even know if it should bother anyone. But a wise person will read the 3 books (Tao Te Ching, Chuang Tzu, and Lieh Tzu) and then understand right away what's what. In fact, how often does discussion of any passages from any of these books occur? Who here read Chuang Tzu and Lieh Tzu? Probably very few people. I bet most read Tao Te Ching and that's that. Considering that Chuang Tzu is the #2 sage of Taoism, how he is completely ignored on Taobums is crazy. That's a very extreme statement to make. I find it absurd.

Sorry mate, but I think you have no clue whereof you speak. No offense. If you read carefully, you would see that his behavior day to day demonstrated that his had a permanent shift in perception. Not to mention that he performed what some people call "miracles", which require perception to be open to work. Had his perception not been "shifted" (to use your word), he couldn't do some of the things he did, like change weather or lift extremely heavy objects (and he didn't train as a strongman to do that). Maybe you don't believe it, that would be another story. Of course you can have your opinion, but I strongly disagree with your assessment. Another thing is that we're not here to judge whether Richard was perfect or not, but we're here to see if what he has to say is useful or not. A spiritually perfect person can give useless advice. A less than perfect person can be very useful for one's development. It all depends on whether or not the message connects and is relevant to you. Maybe Richard's message is not relevant to you, but I find it to be extremely relevant to me. This is much more relevant and useful than learning how to move energy around your body, which is a life-maintenance skill and has nothing to do with wisdom or enlightenment. Richard talked about beliefs that obscure our understanding. Not many teachers talk about those! Name someone else who does? No teacher popular on this forum does. Most are busy promoting their "systems" rather than teaching people how to question. Questioning is a different lifestyle and leads to a different result than following a prescribed system, traditional or otherwise. Following prescriptions is a lower path, since it fails to mature reasoning faculty.

I don't think the film is bad at all. However, I would say it is less than ideal. The reason for that is because it's not good to borrow concepts from science without understanding the meaning of those concepts, and then use those concepts to give your film an aura of scientific validity. That's the problem. The problem is that, first, science itself is bogus, but nobody wants to challenge the assumptions that science is based on, except guys like Nagarjuna, who are dead. Pretty much no modern person wants to challenge science. The way that science can and should be challenged is in philosophy, because science does yield practical results! It's the same issue going the other way too. Spiritual practice also yields results and cannot be challenged in terms of practical application. But it CAN and should be challenged philosophically. Unfortunately people like James Randi don't get it. Oh well. There are not that many contemplators and real philosophers in this world. Most people are eager to just practice, practice, practice and don't want to contemplate or think about anything. People want to get 1, 2, 3 instructions and just follow them. That's the majority mindset. If you get your VCR or DVR, do you REALLY care how it works? Right? You just wanna know, what button do I push to get results, NOW, NOW, hell, YESTERDAY! I want this done yesterday. We are impatient. We want results. We don't care about understanding at all. This attitude dominates spirituality as well. In spirituality people focus on meditation, because people want results. They want to push that button and make things happen. They want meditative experiences. They want juice. They can't be bothered to reflect. To slow down. To pause. To breathe slowly. No, we have to meditate and get that energy going NOW, ASAP. People keep looking for shortcuts, and external validations. This attitude is the result of movies like "What the bleep do we know." It's basically a dim witted movie with good intentions. It's a movie made by someone who doesn't REALLY think much, but just likes to shoot from the hip, and who wants things done yesterday. It's not bad though. It is inspiring to many people. It has some good questions and ideas in it, but it is put together in a careless manner and it's definitely inconsiderate to scientists. It would be like physicists using the concept of crucifixion to talk about matter/anti-matter interactions in a way that's not really related to the crucifixion of the Bible, in order to get an aura of Biblical legitimacy for the study of physics. We would all laugh at that, wouldn't we? It would be stupid. So when this happens in reverse, it's equally stupid.

We've discussed this before. There is no way to separate intention from unintentional. It's one continuum. Essentially everything is intention, period. "Going with the flow" is intentional. The take away point is that intention shifts from survival mode toward ornamentation. In a normal person the mind is desperately trying to maintain survival and status accumulation. The experience is highly structured. It doesn't seem like a game at all. It seems serious. It seems like there are many many things one must do and if one doesn't do them, the consequences appear dire. So one's intention is spent that way. This is accompanied by a feeling that one has few real choices. The problem is not presence or absence of intention, but its structure or character. Better life results from a more loosely structured intention, with less desperation. Less desperation means you don't work for survival or for status, but you work purely in an ornamental capacity. In other words, you move, not because you must or ELSE, but because it's cool and fun, etc. The "the life is holding a gun to my head" feeling is gone. There is a feeling that one has infinite alternatives open. Kind of like walking through an open plane instead of walking through a narrow mountain pass that can only be passed in exactly one way. That's the mastery of life that everyone seeks.

I don't think you've read the book then. Maybe you've glanced through it at best. The guy more than "just caught the glimpse." He had a complete realization and lived his life in a manner very different from normal people. If you read the book you'll see that Richard's life is very unique. It's not like that of a lot of people at all. Not even slightly similar. Also, he was critical of zen. It's the people that gathered around him that called him a "zen master". I don't think Richard cared about zen at all as much as he cared about wisdom.

It's funny how our own experience is not considered to be informative. But if you think about it, if you're not informed, then on what grounds do you claim not to be informed? In order to make such a claim you must know what it's like to be informed and you must recognize that your current state isn't it. But if you know that, are you still truly not informed? This is an issue of externalization vs. internalization of authenticity. What is authentic? Do you feel in charge of authenticity? In other words, is it up to you to determine what is authentic or not? Or do you delegate this task to the external sources? And if so, is your delegation authentic? If yes, how do you know without being the source of your own authenticity? Anyway. Sometimes people speak like you do in order to affect an air of humility. I hope you're just pretending and lying. But if you seriously believe what you said above, you need to consider what I am saying to you.