goldisheavy

That's the ticklish truth for me. I might sometimes say that I am not afraid to die and this will be close to truth, but is it absolutely true? Nope. I still have some insecurities about dying. Maybe even quite a few. But it's way better than it used to be, which is what you're saying.

This is what happens with the conversion of a scared path to a capitalistic business. It's only "normal." But it's not all bad. The books are still affordable, including the timeless ones like TTC, Chuang Tzu and Lieh Tzu. 1000 years ago, you'd probably be taught for near free, or for a small donation, or perhaps altogether for free, but you couldn't just walk into the bookstore and have your pickings of 20 Daoist books. The change brings some good and some bad. But yea, when you have a $2,800 fee, then all pretense of sacredness or spirituality is right out the window. At that point, it's just a business like any other, and buying yourself immortality is no different from buying yourself a couch.

This is correct. First of all Hitler and Stalin were objectivists. Secondly, while there certainly are subjectivists who preach War, that doesn't mean I do. Lies and war are not a natural and essential outcome of subjectivism. Subjectivists are the people who haggle. Objectivists make demands because to them there is only one truth and there is no haggling about anything.

Considering that while I like science I am also critical of it from time to time (especially at the philosophical level), and considering that my views put me closer to a subjectivist than to an objectivist, I think you are wrong in your label. I do like to praise reason and rationality, but that doesn't mean I think objectivism is rational. First of all, I do not observe myself living in a multiverse. Multiverse was one of the competing interpretations of quantum mechanics. I do not take it as fact, nor do I think it's wrong. I basically don't know if we live in the multiverse or not, and I am not sure I even care, because the implications multiversalism and universalism seem to be roughly the same. Second, if you agree that black or white polarized dualistic logic is wrong, that only supports my argument. It only lends more weight to the idea that perhaps for a lot of people Kundalini is not an awakening. I made the title of the thread "There is no awakening for Kundalini" just to be a little provocative and to indicate my own preference. And I forgot to type "is" too. However, if you read what I am saying, you can see that I only present my view as one option or one alternative. Many people are happy with their Kundalini awakening. That's good. They can continue to feel happy. But for people who want to experience something and for whom the idea of "awakening" is a block, I present the idea of gradual development as opposed to awakening. Yes, I call this all-potential. I don't actually give physical space to potential out there in the multiverse. I express the same idea in subjective terms: all experiences are possible. So it's possible to have an awakening of Kundalini. But it's also possible to have Kundalini without any distinct awakening. At the very least, let's recognize that different traditions take different attitudes toward the subtle energies. To the best of my understanding, the Chinese systems do not talk of Qi awakening. I may be wrong, and if I am I want to be educated by someone who can site something to the contrary. Regardless of what the Chinese systems do, my idea is still a good one, in my opinion. I only use the Chinese attitude toward Qi as one example, I don't use it as the basis of my argument. My argument rests on the idea that all experiences are possible.

I haven't personally experienced shaking in meditation, but I've experienced shaking. I think it's a good idea to let it play out but without mentally encouraging it. So if you maintain a neutral attitude toward it and just observe, I think it will pass. At the same time, you have to pay attention as this might be a symptom of something else (are you cold or anemic?). If you have a general health problem, you may need to see a doctor. If you are generally healthy, then I think shaking is OK. There was one episode of extremely violent shaking that happened to me at night. I thought my body was going to explode and splatter itself on the walls. I remained calm and observed it. After a while the shaking subsided and passed away. Perhaps someone who's personally experienced shaking in meditation can chime in.

I agree with you completely on this. If someone feels they have awoken something in themselves, I don't think it's necessarily wrong to feel that way. For example, I might sometimes think that I have awoken a spirit of enlightenment in myself (as it is described in Thurman's translation of Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra), but at the same time, if I am pressed, I would have to admit that full expansion of wisdom is always latent, and that some degree of wisdom is always operative and not merely latent. The sudden vs gradual debate exists in Zen Buddhism too. Some think that enlightenment is sudden. Others think it is gradual. I think it's a good idea to have this kind of debate because it will accommodate different people. The only thing I am trying to negate is the idea that awakening is exclusively and absolutely the only valid way to introduce the experience of Kundalini. Consider how dramatic is the difference between someone who has been practicing power lifting for 30 years and someone who hasn't. And yet we do not use notion of "muscle awakening" to explain such a dramatic difference. I agree with you. As to why that is, my guess is that Kundalini type experiences are more interesting to people who want to experience something closer to the supernormal. Of all the supernormal experiences I think the Kundalini experience is a more accessible one. I don't know if that's exactly why, but currently I tend to think like that. I also don't think Kundalini is either necessary or the only way to experience magic or supernormal, but it's one of the methods. I think the Kundalini experience gives one a sense that there is more to our being than just the physical body. And if you look at it from the Chinese point of view where Qi follow Yi, it give us a sense that intent is more magical and more capable than just moving the body around and thinking.

Yes, something to think about. I wasn't explicitly aware of my mom or dad when I was born. That doesn't mean they were absent. Alright, so I was born in a small company but I will die alone. Or am going to die in a small company as well? I appreciate your correction Scotty.

I take note of the variance in your opinion of me. Thanks for the update.

These kinds of topics are contrary to the physicalist mindset that is dominating our culture. So it's not easy to find someone genuine to practice with. I've given up on that. I made some attempts, but after not finding what I am looking for, I said screw it. I have a life to live. I can't hit the pause button while I am running around looking for a friend. Besides, I was born alone and I will die alone. I better get used to it. I like and welcome company when it's available, but if the company is not there life moves on.

OK, so that means the Chinese school of thought that "Qi follows Yi" is right out for you. Choosing not to get involved is still a choice. You choose not to get involved and yet you expect a certain suddenness to manifest? If that's what you are doing, that's not what I would call unbiased. You are quite involved in the process. You've made your choice. And you have a biased expectation too. On the other hand, if you don't expect suddenness, there is no need to defend it. I say suddenness can be experienced, but it doesn't have to be the only way to experience subtle energy. Is that too biased for you?

Seriously. If you don't believe me, why don't you and I take turns defining what it means to be spiritual and then compare you to me. I bet I will do fine at least under my own definition of the term.

Definitely. There is a lot of narrative that goes like this, and furthermore, I believe it (non-exclusively). These things can happen. At the same time, it doesn't have to happen like that for one. And two, if you examine the experience analytically (as I like to do), even in case of a sudden experience, there is still no awakening ex nihilo, that is there is no something from nothing, in plain English. Well, do you want to experience the suddenness? If so, it's probably best to continue believing in awakening. If you just want to experience all the stuff people talk about after their awakening, I think you can experience it easier by gradual training instead of setting yourself up for anything sudden. It's up to you. And this has been my own experience. I feel the proverbial train rides up and down my spine at times and a crown or a hat on and over my head stretching into space at times, but I didn't get to feel those things suddenly. They gradually appeared. I can make them show up and go away much quicker than before, and I think if I practice this further, I can make these experiences appear and disappear suddenly as well. I just don't think suddenness is inherently valuable. Furthermore, I think of the energy in purely utilitarian terms. I don't think it's as magical as Hindus tend to think of it. In some Hindu thought systems, when Kundalini reaches the crown you become enlightened. I don't buy this kind of stuff at all. What's required for enlightenment is development of wisdom. Buddha was, for example, enlightened. At the same time, there is not a single Pali Sutta (to my knowledge, but please do prove me wrong if you can) that talks about Kundalini hitting the crown of the head. I don't know anything that's attributed to any of the six Zen Patriarchs, starting with Bodhidharma, that would extol the virtue of Kundalini hitting the crown either, or extol the virtue of Kundalini awakening. So what I am saying is that there are a lot of perspectives. None of these alternative perspectives I am talking about are New Age. In fact, New Age itself is a massive borrowing of all kinds of non-new things. I don't know any idea in New Age that's actually new. I don't follow New Age but I don't find any need to speed derisively of it either.

I am a highly spiritual person. I am also highly rational. I don't see a contradiction. I guess I don't fit anywhere. When I hang out in atheist forums, some of them get angry at me for not being a physicalist and saying that the scientific method is not the only good method for gathering knowledge. When I hang out in spiritual forums, some people get angry because I insist on things making sense and being logically consistent. I am used to it by now. For what it's worth, I never liked you either. You're a closed minded conservative douchebag from my perspective, who doesn't belong here. (I hope you don't mind, since you called me a vampire). Spirituality and conservatism are absolutely at odds from my point of view. To be spiritual one has to cultivate mental flexibility. Conservatives pride themselves on mental inflexibility.

You're free to criticize me as you please. I appreciate your gesture though. OK, consider this. I've only ever heard of talk of awakening in Hindu schools of thought. So "Kundalini awakening" is a catchphrase. At the same time, I've never heard of Daoists talk of Qi awakening. Never. To the best of my knowledge Qi is always explained to already exist in each person. Sometimes people would even say things like "Well, if Qi flow didn't exist in you, you'd already be dead." So, it seems to me not every tradition views the concept of awakening as a necessary concept. Let's also look at it this way. There is a difference between someone who trains in a gym and someone who doesn't, right? At the same time, is there such a thing as muscle awakening? We use muscles all the time. Even weaklings use muscles all the time. Just because you can train to be 4 times stronger than normal doesn't mean you have to awaken your muscles. And how about this. If you read about hypnosis, you'll find that hypnotists introduce the state of hypnosis as a natural state that occurs in every individual from time to time (if not all the time). Most people think hypnosis is something mysterious and strange, and the first thing most hypnotists seem to want to do is to disabuse you of that notion. In any case, I am sure some people still like the idea of awakening and I don't want to deprive them of it. If you like your awakening you can have it. But if someone struggles with awakening, then what I am saying can be an alternative way of looking at it that hopefully eliminates some amount of unnecessary struggle.

I agree, but that's even deeper into the rabbit hole. I think people can still get everything they want out of the Kundalini without the notion of "awakening." No need to plunge people into nihilism. So in this sense, awakening is any time you decide to begin to pay attention to Kundalini. This makes the awakening part easier and more natural. I think putting so much burden and emphasis on awakening is a mistake. The burden consists of ideas that Kundalini is special, stupendous, unpredictably dangerous, and that only certain people can awaken it, and other ideas of similar nature. And the emphasis is the idea that to be spiritual one has to have Kundalini awakened. It's the idea that without Kundalini one's spirituality is lacking. While ultimately there may be no progress, people still like to experience changes and they like to create a personal narrative of evolution, of movement, or of a journey. My goal is not so much to deny the narrative, but to make it smoother, easier and more flexible.

No offense, but feeling Kundalini is not all that nice. It can be pleasant at times, but more often it's an annoyance and a distraction. I prefer to summon the subtle energy when I need it to do some work, such as healing in an emergency, or to warm up, but unless I have work to do, I don't like going around all aglow and abuzz with energy. It's neither healthy nor fun. And worshipping it as if it's so important or as if it's a direct route to wisdom is a big mistake. Energy is purely utilitarian by its very nature. It has no wisdom or ignorance in it. Kundalini is no different from the wind we experience when walking down the street. Just like wind it's neither good nor bad and doesn't inherently lead to anything in particular. Nobody worships winds, do they? Well, Kundalini is pretty much nothing other than an internal wind. If we don't worship the external wind, there is no good reason to worship the internal wind either. Knowing how to control inner winds can be useful, but it's not really more magic than the external wind. So, no I don't want to spend more time experiencing Kundalini. I think I experience it more than I would like as is. I'd like to experience it less time, not more. Having Kundalini is like having a tail. It's cool for the first week in a "check this out" way, but then it just gets in the way.

My understanding is that in Daoism the cycle is not viewed as a problem. It is suggested to learn how to be one with the flow of things so that you don't do things out of turn or against the tide of time. So if you move with the times and behave summerly during summer and winterly during winter, you can be at peace with the changes, and the cycles won't hurt you. You will have enjoyable time and experience transcendent bliss and be largely or entirely free of fear of death and disease. The Daoist believe that humans suffer because they are not observant, and because they are stubborn. So humans behave winterly during summer and summerly during winter, and thus they suffer. So if you wear lots of clothing in the summer, you suffer. Then you run around scantily clothed in the winter and again you suffer. So you always act out of turn, and you always push and pull with brute force to get your way in the world. Daoist texts teach to use minimum pushing and pulling, to use minimum struggle. In Chuang Tzu there is an example of a guy who jumps into the waterfall and survives. When asked how can he do it, he replies, paraphrased, "I don't fight the water. I allow my body to adjust itself with the water, and thus I am alive." So instead of escaping the cycle, the Daoist remedy is to be wise about the cycle, to be attentive, to use minimum force, to act at the correct time and during the correct season and so on. That's how I understand it.

Let's be serious for a second. I know the toothpaste example, but you can put the paste back into the tube. You can scoop it up and use a tightly fitting funnel-like attachment with a syringe on the other end to put it back into the tube. Think about this. The factory that makes toothpaste puts it in there somehow. I doubt they dip toothpaste into liquid plastic and then let it solidify around it. I think they actually squeeze the paste into an already-made tube at the factory. A better example would be asking to unbreak a broken egg. This wouldn't be easy to do at all. I can teach you the principle right now, but I am warning you. If you do what I am saying here, you'll be either dead or insane from our POV here, at least for a while. Time is based on signs. Without signs of the time's passage there is no actual time in and of itself. Thus, to reverse time one has to alter the signs. Alteration is done with intent. One cannot produce an honest intent for something that one believes is impossible. Beliefs do not exist in isolation. Beliefs exist in networks of related and mutually supporting and reinforcing beliefs. In NLP, this concept is referred to as "belief ecology" if I remember correctly. All beliefs can be changed through repeated questioning and critical investigation. However, because beliefs exist in networks, questioning one belief often leads many adjacent beliefs to become endangered. This is a scary, scary process that can lead all the way to a complete identity collapse. Meaning a collapse of the world as you used to know it. So unless you believe something is impossible, merely intending a thing makes that thing happen immediately. If you believe that a thing arises as a result of a process, you cannot honestly intend that thing directly. Instead you must intend to enact the process that you believe leads to the arising of the thing. Here it is important not to be kidding yourself about what you actually believe. Brutal and uncompromising self-honesty is required. We all believe some things and pretending for 5 seconds we don't believe something like gravity is not going to enable flying. Some of our beliefs are so deeply engrained and are supported and surrounded by so many reinforcing beliefs in vast belief networks, that changing them all, if you set about doing it, will take many lifetimes and many life and death situations even (blood, sweat and tears, as they say). This means that while ultimately everything is possible, not everything is possible to do in 1 hour or one lifetime. Beliefs have psychic inertia. To really experience your latent omnipotence you have to utterly cease being a human, or even an identifiable sentient being. To revert from this condition, to become a limited human being again, you have to take up beliefs without question (the opposite process) and become more and more vested into those beliefs. It's possible to do this because just like when you are standing in one place, you have a sense of where else you could go, so it is just like when you believe a certain set of beliefs, you also have a sense of what else you could be believing. This sense doesn't go away even if you exercise omnipotence. It means even if you are at the pinnacle of wisdom, you will have a sense of how you could possibly be ignorant. This is because awareness never rids itself of all-potentiality. Every moment is pregnant with every possibility and even during enlightenment there is a latent possibility of ignorance. This is where I disagree with Buddha who painted the process of unbinding as irreversible. Normally we want certain things from life. We enjoy the feelings of our bodies. We enjoy having friends. We enjoy knowing that when we open the door the same familiar street is there, waiting for us to step on it. We like these things. As long as we like them there will always be practical (meaning conveniently and without taking too much time) limits on what can be reversed. However, don't ever confuse practical convenience with ultimate possibility. Everything is ultimately possible but there is no guarantee of convenience.

I've read some of the book you link and I think Tao Te Ching actually provides the exact same understanding, although not as explicitly. In any case, I believe the same things too, and it's hard for me to read that book because it feels like a boring and unsurprising repetition of everything I already believe. Still, I know you posted this not for my own benefit but for yourself, to ease your own burden. It takes a bit of courage to be who you are when the beliefs you have are somewhat rare. Congratulations!

This is wrong. Reading can help a lot. I could also say that practicing won't help much either, like the message in Avadhut Gita for example, but I won't.

I put my subtle energy largely to sleep because it is just an appearance without any substance to it (like all other appearances). As an appearance its only function is ornamental. I don't find subtle energy all that beautiful so I mostly keep it asleep. Sometimes it awakens because apparently I do enjoy some of its effects. So you make an interesting point, as I notice you do often. Still, I disagree with one thing. Everything, bar none, has an antidote. If you think something lacks an antidote it's only because you are ignorant or you're experiencing a cognitive obscuration of some sort (such as a false assumption or an erroneous belief). There is nothing that cannot be undone. Nothing is permanent. Mortality is not permanent. Neither is immortality. Some things can be difficult to undo, but nothing is ultimately impossible.

I respect Chunyi Lin. He seems like a wise, honest, kind, open and non-bullshit guy. I haven't tried Spring Forest Qigong per se (although I do similar things anyway sometimes), but so far every time I see a video with Chunyi Lin, I am impressed.

Tao Te Ching Chuang Tzu: The Inner Chapters Lieh Tzu Hua Hu Ching Wen Tzu All the books translated by Eva Wong. That's a good start I think. I'm sorry but I can't recommend any summaries or shortcuts. Most Taoist books on "my" list are kind of short anyway. Just read them as is, without the summaries.

The way I understand it, Taoism laughs at the whole concept of good vs evil. In other words, a Taoist perspective is that what's considered good and what's considered evil is relative and personal. Have you read Chuang Tzu? Chuang Tzu talks about this issue pretty directly and it's a great text. Give it a read. I think it will be better than anything anyone will say here (including me).

If you practice lifting heavy weights (heavier than 400 lbs), after a long time of this, your bone mass will increase. Obviously you have to slowly work up to that level if you are really serious about using the weight lifting method. If you've never done it before, you can't just start with 400lbs (roughly 200 kilos, yea I know 1kg=2.2lbs). But, that's just one method that I've read about. There probably are other methods, like using your mind to direct your bone growth. But in order to use the mind for this kind of thing, you have to have appropriate beliefs (appropriate mindset, in other words) and you have to be resolved on it. In any case, unless you plan on participating in some combat or warfare, I don't know why you need heavy and thick bones. If you want to heal people, I think you can do it with any kind of bones. What about qi gong practices that aim for light body? Like the people who walk on eggs? Do you think they also have heavy and thick bones?