goldisheavy

It's definitely possible, but unlikely. Death, as an event, for most people, is a tragedy and a trauma. Ever heard of post-trauma amnesia? Why does that happen? People forget what they don't enjoy. But knowledge doesn't exist as an series of islands. Everything is connected. So let's say you got into a car wreck that you'd like to forget. You can't just forget the wreck. You must forget sitting in the car 2 seconds ago before the wreck as well. What about 5 seconds? Yes, this has to go too. What about even entering the car? What about everything that happened on that day? In other words, you must forget not just the traumatic event, but some amount of context associated with it, so that there is no nagging hint left in the mind. Furthermore, intention has different levels. Most things we do proceeds from the most superficial level of intent. But at a deep level we actually want things different from what we would admit to ourselves. From our level right here, it looks like all the memories of life events are precious. But at a deep level, we might know that lives are endless and life events are countless, and to try to hang on to those memories is like hanging on to the grains of sand in a vast desert filled with sand -- it makes no sense at all. So what seems to make sense to us on a superficial level, doesn't necessarily make any sense to same us on a deeper level. So here you have at least two reasons for why we shouldn't remember much, if anything, from past lives. Is it possible? Sure it is. Is it possible to remember the contents of your dreams when you wake up? Yes. But do you remember every dream and every detail therein? You'll remember more if you specifically intend to remember, and this is also true with dreams. Once you intend to remember dreams more, you do remember them more.

It's like asking a hungry dog to leave the tasty bone be. I agree with you that people should leave Jong Chang be, and stop harassing him or his spirit, if you like. At the same time, people are hungry, and they've heard John Chang has good mashed potatoes and steak and all that other good stuff. What's the solution? It is my humble opinion that this hunger cannot be eliminated. Thus only one option remains. The information on how to self-feed has to be released. So you see, this entire "closed door" business is hurting more than helping. If you really intend to keep secrets, you cannot let even your wife or child know. Never mind someone like Kostas or anyone else. Now the cat's out of the bag. Now that even one single person knows besides the originator of secrets, it's not a secret anymore. The correct term for this is "restricted knowledge" and not "secret." Wielders of openly known about, yet restricted knowledge face dire consequences if they continue to deny people the right to know. And with spiritual teachings, much more than with any other kind, I do think people have an inborn inalienable right to know. As you said in one of your posts, no one, not even an immortal, can escape the consequences of their actions. That's apropos. If people are taught what they want to know and they are told they don't need a teacher, they'll stop the harassment. At the same time, if you tell people what they need to know, but castrate that knowledge giving a suggestion of inherent inadequacy by saying, "Oh, but even though we described everything here, you still need a teacher," then harassment will of course intensify compared to what it is now. So to lower the level of harassment, it's essential to fulfill two conditions and not just one: 1. Release satisfactory information (it doesn't have to be complete, but it has to be satisfactory, it has to put out the hunger). 2. Give people a strong and sincere suggestion of self-sufficiency right along with the rest of instructions. Of course John Chang can't give such suggestion in a sincere manner if he doesn't believe men are capable of self-sufficiency. So it's not just your actions that have consequences. It's your beliefs too. Perhaps beliefs have vastly more consequences than actions. There is an unrealistic option of hoping the spiritual hunger will simply go away with time. Good luck with that, if that's what you think. People have been bred for hundreds of years to rely on and in some cased to even submit to their teachers. This has consequences. Oh and if you have a secret that even one more person knows, it's not a secret anymore. It is restricted knowledge at best. I am against secrets and restrictions on knowledge, but this post is already too long to explain why I am against.

It's possible that a lot more depends on the student than on the teacher. Thus, a poor student with a great teacher can achieve moderate results, at best. But a great student, even without a teacher, can achieve great results. What matters is how perceptive you are, how able and ready to learn you are, and how dedicated, consistent, sincere and honest you are. By sincere I mean you have a true wish to learn, and by honest I mean you are unwilling to lie to yourself to hurry things along. If you are destined to reach spiritual greatness, you'll reach it, teacher or no teacher. It's like saying that when you are destined to walk a mile, you'll walk a mile clothed or naked. EDIT: oops, looks like I quoted the wrong paragraph from electric chi. I've fixed that. My reply should have better context now.

I am curious about the vision of Taoist immortality. First a small amount of background info on where I stand with Taoism: I prefer information that's been made available in translation of Lao Tzu (Laozi), Chuang Tzu (Zhuangzi) and Lieh Tzu (Liezi). Upon reading all 3 authors in translation (in English), and in some cases reading 2 or more competing translations, I come out in complete agreement with the 3 big dudes of Taoism. I agree with them. I think they raise interesting questions and tell interesting stories. And I think one can extract a lot of very valuable and practical advice for both day to day life and for esoteric practice. However! And this is a big however, not only is there no mention of immortality in the 3 key Taoist texts, but what's even worse for the seekers of immortality, they appear to advocate embracing the change! All 3 talk about the seasons, and how there is a season for everything. How things take their turns. Chuang Tzu specifically talks about death and asks something to the effect of, "Is death really as bad as we think? Why not embrace it?" This seems completely opposite of the attitude of the immortality seekers (More Pie Guy, and other serious neigong practitioners, can you hear me? ). So I don't think real Taoism has anything to do with immortality. At the same time, I admit I find all the stories of immortals to be interesting and I don't dismiss them out of hand either, but this brings me to my questions. So how does the whole thing work? First, do neigong practitioners really strive for immortality? It seems like many do, but I don't want to assume this. In particular, do any neigong practitioners on this forum want to become immortals? When I look at this world, I think the worst part is not so much that the life is limited in duration or that we are vulnerable, but that things are bureaucratic and that fearful and insecure people take actions that are too extreme for the situation or are not strong enough for the situation (judgment errors), and all these judgment errors accumulate and create a lot of unnecessary suffering. Does anyone consider that if you could live forever on this planet, life would be boring? Are you planning to be am immortal on this planet or will you fly away? Does anyone think that having a lot of personal history is as much a disadvantage as it is an advantage? On the plus side, you remember a lot of lessons, let's say, but on the minus side, as an immortal you carry a lot of historical baggage that prevents you from seeing in new ways. Try to imagine someone with a 1,000,000 year history. Is that helpful? As a way of a small example, when I dream, on most occasions I do not remember who I am in the waking world (unless I am lucid, in which case I cam remember everything about the body being in bed, about who I am in the waking world, and so on). For the most part, not remembering who I am outside the context of a dream is not necessarily a hindrance or something bad. I've not really been inconvenienced by it. There are some things I do want to remember, but they tend to be more of a principle than remembering all the actual life events. So for example, I want to remember in all of my dreams that I am not controlled by my dreams. But I don't necessarily care to remember that in my waking life, 4 hours before I went to sleep, I drank a glass of water. That seems silly and useless. I think most life events are useless to remember. When I die, I don't necessarily want to remember all of this life, but I do want to remember some "takeaway points" if you will. Some useful transcendent principles. I actually would like to forget all the other fluff. But as an immortal, it seems like you'd have a very long (infinite?) personal history with lots of useless junk in it. I also wonder about this: where do troubles come from? For example, why do people form insane bureaucracies? Is it because I am a mortal? So if I become an immortal, suppose I go to the Jade Palace, the land of the immortals. How can I be sure it won't be a yet another crappy bureaucracy? Why does everyone seem to be assuming that every other world out there, especially the ones immortals depart to, are really nice places to be, and so nice in fact, that one would wish to stay there forever in an eternal body? I think it's kind of funny, but imagine you arrive at the Jade Palace where everyone is an immortal, and so, first of all, you're no longer special. You're not an immortal among mortals. Now you are an average Joe in this new world. They tell you to take a number. You see a big line and start waiting. Eventually you reach a little window and they hand you out a little ID card and so on. If these immortals live as a society, surely they'll have conflicting interests. And if that's the case, surely they'll have bureaucracies or worse to manage all the conflicts. On the other hand, maybe immortals are not really social. Maybe immortals are like lone cats that wonder through the universe(s) alone? But then I have to ask this: if you accept a departure from society in your psyche, surely you can be very resplendently happy right here and right now without going anywhere? Social conflicts only have meaning if you really care about society, are interested in it, want to be a social participant and so forth. Then, let's say you are not bothered by any social concerns. Let's say the thing that bothers you is your bodily frailty. Now, suppose you practice neigong to refine your body, or give birth to a new body. This represent a change from one body to another, through effort. If you can accomplish a change in body through effort, doesn't it make sense that you'll need to continue to expend further effort to maintain this body in good shape, and that as soon as you stop expending effort, the body will collapse and die? In other words, if the body is not already and inherently immortal, and if it is your effort that made it immortal, what makes you think the body won't require further effort to stay immortal? This also means constantly worrying about the onset of mortality. So even if you're an immortal, you will still have constant worry and concern that if you're not vigilant, you can revert to mortal condition at any time. Isn't this kind of life as much hassle as being a mortal in the first place? What if you learn to accept bodily modifications, including any and all disease, pain, and so on, and learn to transcend it internally without requiring that your body itself be made immortal? How does that option sound? Another thing is belief in substance. Do you, neigong practitioners, believe in substance? In other words, do you believe you are transmuting and dealing with subtle substances in the body when you practice neigong? In my opinion, if you believe that all phenomena are backed by some universal objectively existent substance, the best way to manipulate and study such substance is with the scientific method. On the other hand, let's say you reject the idea of an ultimate universal objective substance. This would mean you believe all phenomena are manifestations of the primordial objectless awareness, like a blind man seeing rainbows and like a deaf man hearing music, etc., just visions without any substance or objects behind them. This means you can learn to control and to orchestrate these visions, but then, why bother with such substance-tied ideas as energy and energy meridians? You have so much freedom if you believe everything is just mind. So why not use that freedom? Why make up a vision of energy channels that mimic the body's shape? What is the point of that? I can understand if you believe those channels are inherently there because that's how the universal objective substance is arranged, you have to follow what's been given to you at birth. But if you don't believe there's anything objective that's been "given" to you, and if you realize your own body is just a vision, why make another vision on top of it? Why create a vision of energy meridians on top of this already visionary body? Why not, for example, simply dissolve the body, or depart from it? Why tinker with it? So it seems, if you set out to tinker with the body, you must really believe in substance, but if you really believe in substance, then science is the much better way to study and to manipulate substance. But if you don't believe in substance, practices like MCO make very little sense. Is it because MCO is traditional and thus, safe? Is there safety in tradition? Safety in numbers? So if you made up your own practice, you'd feel you are crazy, right? But if you follow what thousands of others have followed, you feel much safer, more sane, right? But if you are that attached to society and social conventions, then how do you expect to live a happy life as an immortal? Please refer to immortal bureaucracy above. Please understand that I am not a doubting Thomas. I believe almost anything is possible. I believe you can go through walls if you want, and leave your footprints in the rock. None of this requires one to be an immortal or to practice MCO. I just think that the idea immortality and the idea that energy practice leads to immortality is... how shall I say it... not consistent with itself. It hides a lot of contradictions and it betrays a lot of hidden weakness. So for example, immortal should be fearless, but how can you develop fearlessness by attaching yourself to an old tradition for safety sake? Big contradiction there. I don't want to inhibit anyone. I am not trying to convince anyone to be like me. I like the different things that people do and like I said, I do believe a lot of strange things are possible. I hope someone can respond to some of the questions I raise for my own enjoyment and elucidation, and hopefully it will be fun for other people as well.

It's like putting a lipstick on a pig. I think the practices are helpful, but I think they help in an indirect way. There is no practice that directly, as a sole and exclusive result of it, grants immortality. The best that I believe a practice can do, is to clear away some impediment to wisdom and to keep one healthy and keep one having more fun in life (assuming the exercises are enjoyable, which I think is true for most, if not all of them). You can't polish a stone to a mirror no matter how hard you polish it though. You have to start higher up the phenomenal hierarchy. Preferably you start right at the root of being and non-being and not an inch lower. Immortality cannot be a construct or an attainment, or it would be impermanent like all constructs and attainments are. It's not something you can build, like a house. It's something that reveals itself to be already there through stripping away of pretense, layer by layer.

You're saying it like I agree with Buddha on every single issue. When someone comes to you with a genuine concern, you can do something to resolve it. Or you can tell the person to ignore it. Ignoring concerns is the path of ignorance. Ignorance has some merit, but it's not my preferred approach. The field of meaning is not something one can escape, and trying to run away from pressing concerns is ultimately a losing battle, kind of like running away from your ankles. The harder you run, the faster your ankles are catching up to you and in the end you just get tired. Getting your student tired is one of the techniques of Zen, but it's definitely not a compassionate one. I wouldn't want this technique to be applied to me by an unscrupulous Zen "master" if I was in a weaker and susceptible state of mind. In my opinion many Zen masters are assholes with wisdom, and I would say some are assholes without any wisdom whatsoever too. And some Zen masters are genuinely compassionate and helpful. I don't embrace Zen approach wholesale. Yes, I alluded to that in my first post in this thread. I'm in the same boat. But I think in addition to what information has been given to us about immortals, immortals are also what we make of them. So the answer to "what or who is an immortal" is a combination of "What have I heard about immortals?" and "What do I want immortals to be?" It's neither completely receptive nor completely creative. That can't be right. Immortals do not leave behind a remainder. In other words, they don't have something they leave behind, such as ego. Suppose you live in the New York City and you want to move to Hong Kong. To do that, you have to leave behind New York City. This would be called a remainder or some kind of "left over" that you left behind. Kind of like a half-eaten meal is a left-over or a remainder. It's something you discarded. On the contrary, immortals enter into immortality together with every aspect of being, without a remainder. Nothing is left behind. Nothing is left over. Nothing is wasted. The whole thing becomes immortal. In Zen language, all meat is the best. And besides, disidentification is just another variant of identification. It's still a reliance on an imaginary boundary. (And like I said before, imaginary boundaries are the only real boundaries). Delineations between causes and effects are imaginary in the sense that imagination is real, but it's still creative and shifty, like you'd expect imagination to be.

It's fair. But answering it is not going to be easy for two reasons: one, I don't have a complete vision of immortal life (or I'd be an immortal already), and two, what little bits I think I can see are not easy to explain. First, the subtle energies have nothing to do with immortality. Whether your dan tiens are empty or full is irrelevant. What matters is wisdom. In particular, if you see yourself as a container, no amount of filling it or fiddling with the energies will help. If you see yourself as a separate individual, again, no amount of work with the energy will help. At the same time, if you recognize yourself to be something beyond an individual, something that's not separate, and something that's not even a "something", then there is no way you can empty out, no matter how much you drain. Then, also no matter how much you try to fill up, you can't ever get full. Why not? Because you're not a thing and you don't put too much emphasis on imaginary delineations. Imagination is real though, so I don't mean to say "imaginary as opposed to real." Imaginary delineations are the only real delineations. An immortal is someone who understands the limitations of delineation, and for this reason, doesn't engage in practices that really depend on delineations. So for example, delineating first dan tien from the second, or delineating my dan tien from yours, and so on -- this is what immortals do not rely on. Second, immortals are not beings who live forever, but they are beings who can choose the time of their death and the manner and circumstance of their rebirth. And they do this choosing effortlessly, without straining themselves. And it's possible to choose without the strain due to wisdom. Third, immortals have an relatively unusual degree of influence over the phenomena. Things seem to happen exactly as they should be happening for an immortal. The people the immortal meets in life are the kinds of people that are good to meet. If some stranger talks to an immortal on the street, that's not really a stranger, it's a friend. Fourth, immortals intent is melted into everyone else's intent and it seems that whatever immortal wants is what also people around him want, and vice versa, but there is some vibrancy to this, so that interesting frictions arise, the kinds of frictions that add to the color of life as opposed to detract. So this coincidence of intent or will is not something that enters into an extreme. Fifth, immortals are less dependent on society. They really are more like cats. Immortals don't hate society, but they are not fixated on it either. Immortals derive pleasure from the beginningless shimmer of pure being and not from some specific fixed arrangement (be it social or anti-social or non-social). It is also true that when immortals live among equals, they are average Joes who are unremarkable to each other. At the same time, if immortals appear among mortals, they know that they are remarkable compared to a mortal. Immortals are not stupid or ignorant. When an immortal wants to cultivate an entire society, it's seen as an ornament instead of as a necessity (big difference there!). And of course immortals do not fear things like punishments, getting caught, and other trivialities of mortal life. Ok, but how can you become an immortal? I'll try to explain this. First, you need to know how to become a mortal. Suppose that you're an immortal, and you want to become mortal. What do you need? You need to delineate life from death. So for example, if I move my arm around, that's change. But if I am laying on my death bed dying, that's also change. But why is one change considered a sign of life, and another change is considered a sign of death, when both changes are simply changes? It's because of a newly introduced delineation. And by the way -- becoming a mortal is one of the powers of an immortal. Immortals know how to introduce delineations. So first thing is to introduce a delineation. What is the second thing? The second thing is you have to take that delineation seriously. So it's not enough to distinguish life from death, you must become obsessed about that distinction. If you can't get serious about it, the delineation will lack sufficiently vested interest to have power over appearances. You have to vest into it completely. Once you thus cut off an individual being from a stream of beingness, you can start assigning other delineations to it, such as arms being distinct from legs, head from torso, organs from blood, chi gets delineated from shen from jing from jin and so on. Dan tiens gets delineated from each others. One locality gets delineated from another. One time gets delineated from another. And thus an entire world appears that is filled with mortals. These mortals can go around and pretend to work toward immortality then, but it's all a waste of time. Why is that? Because being a mortal is an act of immortal intent to begin with. So then can you stop being a mortal due to some practice? No. You cannot. The only way to stop is to stop intending to be a mortal. Simply put, stop wanting to be one and you won't be. But this stopping has to come from a deep "place", from the immortal roots of your being. So it's not like wanting an ice cream or any other wanting that arises within the mortal framework. It's a type of want that arises from beyond the mortal life, and either instantly or very quickly you'll be liberated. You can't trick yourself or pretend yourself into it. What all immortals share is a sublime understanding of the field of meanings. They know how meanings originate and how they dissolve. And immortals know the limitations of meanings, but they never disparage them, because immortals know the limitations of disparaging and any other fixed attitudes. Well, I think this is good enough.

I wanted to give my overall impression of this thread. First, I'd like to say thanks to everyone who answered, regardless of what I will say next. Second, for the most part, everyone was busy dodging the questions in one way or another. Most people took it upon themselves to answer simpler questions, such as "Is Immortality possible?" And "What would be my first steps in attaining immortality?" I think these questions did get answered. Is it possible? Most people answer "yes". What are the first steps? "Still the mind" and other naive newbie methods like that. How about some of the more difficult questions? Those remained untouched. I asked a lot of questions. Someone could, for fun, pick the more difficult ones, and answer them. Of course no one did. I asked how Immortality works in the sense of, "What is day to day life of an Immortal like?" Not "how does attaining Immortality work," which is a much easier question. Third thing I noticed is that a lot of people prefer to quote other people. I can understand this. These folks feel they're nobody special to offer their own opinions. Of course what these people don't know is that I precisely wanted to hear real opinions and not quotes of some "illustrious" master. I wanted to know what the real forum denizens here thought in their own words. I've already read more than my fair share of the past masters' words and don't really need a "yet another quote from a yet another master." I want to know what you, real life people think, not what some legendary master thought. It seems that everyone here is busy just following the steps outlined to them. Hardly anyone here has bothered to face the contradictions inherent in the idea of immortality. Hardly anyone has bothered to face their own true desires and wishes. My guess is that everyone is mostly busy pretending not to have many desires, eh? You all forgot about honesty being the foremost spiritual quality of a person. Instead many of you pretend to be something you are not, eh? These are just impressions I have. They are not final or conclusive judgments, and besides, it's just little ol' me, so there is nothing to worry about. It's not like you just got criticized by a very important Master or Immortal, sheesh! You are all quite safe. Once again, thank you everyone for replying.

This is why Zen sometimes sucks major donkey balls. I'd slap this Zen "master" silly for such a bullshit answer.

Very interesting stories everyone, and a thought-provoking article mikaelz. I think the article is definitely exaggerating, but not terribly much. So there is some truth to it, but not enough truth to get depressed. Oh, that doesn't mean there is no reason to be depressed! I'm only talking about the article. My 2c opinon: The world is becoming more connected. What does this mean? It means there will be a period of economic and cultural equalization. It's going to have both positive and negative effects. There are entire cultures (who shall remain nameless) that are stuck in the past. People from those cultures are scared. They see how things are changing and they want to stick to their centuries old brutal and unfair ways of life. These folks hate progress or change of any kind, good or bad change, doesn't matter to them, they will fight any change. This will have some effect on the world, but not terribly large, and yet, not so small that it will be completely invisible either. Religion is in the process of being disentangled from spirituality all over the world. I view this as a positive change. Economically, all the major corporations and rich people are searching for slave labor everywhere. However, there are physical limits to what people can take. And what's more, because the world is getting connected, these economic slaves are finding out how they are being abused, and they are beginning to stand up for themselves. Think Foxconn and Honda plant in China recently. That's just the very beginning! Indian labor in some industries is already either at parity or almost parity with USA. As India becomes more expensive, companies go to China. As China becomes more expensive, companies will go to Vietnam and so on. Eventually they will exhaust all the pools of slave labor. This will be a long and somewhat painful process for all concerned, except for the rich guys who will benefit nicely from this. I think some of those guys will eventually be killed by the people they've exploited out of revenge, but I am not sure if there is enough anger for a revolution or upheaval. I also think that if there is going to be a major upheaval in one of the "important" countries, it will spread like wildfire to the rest of the "important" countries, due to global connectedness. I think the elites understand this, and this is why they constantly have summits like G20, G22, and their little secret get-togethers, like the Bilderberg Club (meeting soon or now in Spain) where they plan on how to mitigate the PR damage they are always doing to themselves. What all this means, in my opinion, is that while you can somewhat run from a relatively worse place to a relatively better place, eventually you won't be able to run. Things will eventually equalize. In USA, the fight for better healthcare is not over. It's just beginning. There is going to be back and forth. The rich fools won't easily give up their standing. Doing right by the people is definitely going to hurt some private interest. Just watch how vigorously some congresspeople in USA are fighting against Net Neutrality. It's disgusting, but the fight is far from over. In the end people will win, because resisting the will of the masses is futile. The rich, in the past, have been able to brainwash the masses so that the masses would act against their own self-interest. I don't think they'll be able to continue to do that in the foreseeable future, and the culture is going to change as a result. People will vote less and less against their own self-interests, and there will be a flattening of the power pyramid as a result. So, as I see it, there is nowhere to hide from the oncoming rain of crap, er, I mean fertilizer. At the same time, if I understand correctly, old Taoists practiced in extremely austere conditions. Why does Zhuangzi talk about rabbit snares? I don't think it's an accident. My guess is that some Taoists living in the caves would live that way. They'd collect water inside the caves, then they would catch rabbits using simple snares. Make fire using simple methods (friction, fire pistons, or flint stones). Cook the rabit (you can dig a hole in the ground, line the hole with clay, pour water in it, boil the water by moving hot stones from the fire into the hole, stick a rabbit in that hole. Voila! Fresh, bacteria-free rabbit soup, cooked right in the ground! If you eat the rabbit right after taking it out of the hole, it will be fine, even if you cooked it in a dirty ground, because boiling water will kill the germs. So if the ancient Taoists survived in these conditions, I think we have it really easy in comparison. Where would the ancient Taoists go for their dental plan? I am not saying we shouldn't improve our culture. I think that by all means we should strive to improve our lot in life, but at the same time, if spiritual practice is all you care about, surely you'll do fine no matter what country and no matter what conditions you live in.

Taiji Butterfly seems to make sense. In my opinion, what Taiji Butterfly is posting should be common knowledge for any dan tien-leaning people. I don't agree with everything Taiji Butterfly is saying though, but I think he's/she's definitely not clueless. I respect his/her opinion, even if I disagree on some things. Thanks for the link.

I disagree with this. First of all, to pretend to not have interest is intellectual dishonesty. I am willing to try to suspend my own interests at times to take a look from another point of view. So I can practice what is described here during analysis. When that's done, I will return to my own point of view and proceed from there. It's also important to keep in mind that this ability is not necessarily going to be reciprocated. You might be the only person willing to take another person's view. In particular, in every case, strongly religious people absolutely refuse to take on an opposing viewpoint and therefore I am unwilling to meet these folks halfway either. They don't want to bend, and neither will I, if that's how they are.

That's not exactly immortality. It's just a long lifespan.

God is not a thing. It's not something. But it's hard to understand how can a word refer to something that isn't something. This is exactly why I think the idea of God hurts more than helps. This is why I find something like Buddhism or Taoism to be wiser than theistic religions.

These days I find the idea of God to be more harmful than helpful. However, if you're a responsible human being, you can benefit from a very careful handling of that idea. And if you are sincere in your belief, you are right -- This whole world is nothing other than God's vision in God's mind. There is simply nothing else to make the world from. And it arises due to God's intent. What this means is that God is right at the core of your being. God is more you than you are yourself. This is hard to understand. I think that's an OK view to have, but it is limiting if you are perpetually stuck to only this way of looking at things, and cannot envision any other possibility. In Kaballistic approach, two spiritual objects become closer together when they share more and more common traits. One of the traits of God is infinite imagination and the ability to assume infinite points of view. If you wish to become closer to God, then train your mind to gain access to infinite imagination and train yourself to be able to accept and tolerate infinite points of view.

Thank you for kind words. I am not categorically for or against most methods, in particular the ones you list. I don't want to limit imagination, which I believe is a good quality, and I don't like the idea of reducing variety. At the same time, as you can see, I do like to question things. I think that no matter what approach one takes, it should be maximally honest. And the ultimate judge of what is maximally honest is not going to be me. My questions are just tools that can help people to be more honest with themselves, but the result of that honesty is not necessarily what I personally think. It's up to each person to decide. And at the same time, whatever we all decide, I hope we can continue to collaborate and help each other, and yes, help keep each other honest. That said here are my views on all the practices you list: - Energetic practices like Qigong, Kundalini etc.? I believe that for these particular practices one should either find a good teacher who practices these for a long time without any side-effects, and who, preferably, has helped many people help out of problems that may sometimes arise with these. Or one should have a strong base of wisdom that's been gained by following other practices first, such as basic meditation and contemplation. Once the person starts these practices, I believe what help people become enlightened is not so much the energy rising up some channels -- this is irrelevant to my mind. What helps people is that while you do these energy practices, there is a high likelihood of encountering strange phenomena. These strange phenomena will very likely challenge your ideas about reality. And it is this challenge that is helpful. In light of some of these challenging experiences, one may have to reconsider some of one's core beliefs. One may also need to become more attentive to what one believes. This increased attentiveness is a good thing. I also think that when properly done, these practices can make a person more healthy, and that's good too. - Deities, Mantras, Mandalas like in Tibetan Buddhism? These are also good, because if you seriously practice some of these, strong, vivid and strange experiences can arise that will challenge what you believe about reality, mind, yourself, the world and so on. Again, it's not so much the deities that are inherently good, but the way these experiences help one to gain a broader and less constrained mind. I believe these practices can effects as strong as the energy practices, and so, again, you should either have a good base of wisdom first, or you need an experienced guide to hold your hand if you want some safety. If you don't care about safety, then you don't need anything or anyone, just be responsible. - Zazen, Shikantaza, Vipassana, Mindfulness practices? I think these practices are the safest at the beginning and help one develop a good base of wisdom. At the same time, these practices have no upper limit either. So if you take one of these up, it goes all the way (turtles going all the way down, so to speak). But as with any spiritual practice, these methods can also sometimes produce strange experiences. - Or simply an intellectual analysis - like Ramana's self-inquiry, study of the suttas etc.? This is necessary no matter what practice you choose. Why is that? Because the manner in which we approach life, and the manner in which we approach our spiritual practice, completely depend on what you believe about life, about yourself, about the world, about the practice and so on. All these beliefs have to be subjected to the fire of reason to keep them honest. This is especially true if you want to meditate in the Buddhist tradition. In the Buddhist tradition, meditation without The View is like a headless chicken running around, it is of no use, and can even lead to a development of a delusion. Honesty is what prevents delusions. And honesty cannot exist in the absence of some kind of reflection and contemplation. One way to describe a spiritual person, is a person with exceptional honesty. It is honesty that eventually unlocks magic power. And by honesty I mean deep inner honesty and not something like telling everyone around you what you did last Friday or something like that. Does it matter? -- You decide. Currently I think it does matter. But I am not completely committed to that position. Maybe next year I will think it doesn't matter. But that's just me. You still have to decide this for yourself. What did I practice? When I was 20, I started with questioning things and just doing some general research. Later on, roughly between 21-23, I was practicing a number of different things. The practice that resulted in the strongest and flashiest experiences was surrender. I would practice surrender, maybe to the universe, maybe to God. I was very much in love with Sufi poet Rumi and I had friends who encouraged me to die before I die. I took this very seriously. I was determined to die. And I've had a number of experiences where I died in one way or another. One time all of my conceptions, even the deepest ones, melted completely and I was completely dissolved into an experience that was at once the most peaceful I've ever experienced, boundless, limitless, and Godly. Right then and there I saw how the world was uncreated and right then I understood the role of primordial mind in creating the world. My idea that the world existed as some objective substance was either completely shattered at that time, or it received a grievous mortal wound at the very least. Then I saw the world slowly re-emerge, and out of undefined pregnant potentiality, things started to take shape and the world reappeared, very slowly and gently and peacefully. I found myself laying on the floor, meditating in my room when that happened, just as I was prior to that experience. There is more to it, but this description will have to suffice for now. I am roughly 35 years old now (don't want to give out my exact age). I've experienced many things. Some things were just very strange. Other things were absolutely terrifying. I also had strange experiences out in the world, on the street. I did strange things and strange things happened to me. This was when I was very very open to everything. Then I realized that my world is becoming completely unglued and that there was no limit. In other words, all that strangeness had no upper limit, and then I realized I wasn't sure how far I wanted to go that way. I also read some Sufi saying that there is drunken Sufism and there is sober Sufism and that struck a chord with me. I realized I was definitely drunk and I wanted to sober up, but not forever! I will become drunk again later on. At that time I was also studying Advaita Vedanta too, and many other things. But as I was sobering up, my attention turned to Buddhism. I have intentionally closed my heart to strangeness and immediately things became less strange. Strange things were happening more rarely and my life was once again becoming more normal and as you'd expect it to me. My main practice was a combination of mindfulness and contemplation, and it is the same till this day. I realized one important thing. The world I find myself in, as bad as it sometimes seems, and as full of suffering as I sometimes find it, is really my own divine intention from the highest point. In other words, I am not here by accident. I am here because of my own intent from the very center of my being. I like humanity. I like this planet. I like myself as a human. I realized all this stuff is not an accident. At the same time, I am also tired of being a human and I am tired of this world. But I realized that this world is like my baby, and by this world I don't mean some physical piece of rock, I mean everything I believe to be true, especially my core beliefs about reality. So giving it up won't be easy. I have to be absolutely certain that I no longer volunteer to be confined here. And how can I be so certain about it, when only a cosmic minute ago it was my baby? It's not easy to be certain about it at all. So then I thought I need to take it easy and slow. I need to be certain about this. Do I really mean to dissolve everything I believe to be true? Am I ready to accept the consequences? At that point I had a taste of the consequences and of what is possible when I allow more limitlessness into my life and I had to be sure I want it. Just to give you a small taste of what I was grappling with, in one of my meditations I was approaching death. As I was about to die, I had a vision of my father. Immediately I thought, "What will my father think of this? (me deciding to die?)" I felt disapproval and immediately I couldn't die anymore. When I came out of meditation I was furious. How dare my father stop me? Then I realized it was my own belief about my father! It is what I deeply believe my father is like. This didn't make things much easier anyway. Even though I knew it was "just" a belief, it was not some superficial one. It was so deeply buried, that it might as well be my father shaking his head with disapproval at my intention to die. Around that time I was really beginning to understand the weight that all my unconscious beliefs had. Imagine how surprised I was? I was very surprised! This means that unbeknownst to myself I had part of my being that were sabotaging my efforts! I didn't know this at all. Now I was becoming aware of how much strange stuff was buried in my being. All that cruft has to be excavated, but it won't be easy or quick. Since my intention was very serious, the challenges that arose to my practice were equally serious and then I was left to reflect. I know what my power is. I have quite a bit of wisdom now. But I still don't know what I want exactly, and if I want real change, I can't be half-hearted about it -- that's the spiritual law. If half my being intends one thing and another half intends the opposite, either nothing will happen, or I will suffer from a terrible internal tare that will tare right at the core of my being. I don't want that. So from then on I spend most of my time in contemplation and some in meditation. I believe I will once again return to the original wildness, and when I do, I won't have this much baggage, I will be ready to go completely. Without any anchors attached to the old ways, I will sail off. I don't know if this answers your questions, but you can't say I haven't tried.

Good one Marblehead! I would say this: the one who appears in your dreams, is it you or someone else? If it's someone else, then you'll die. If it's you, then you won't die. Another way: who was called Marblehead 10 years ago? Was it you or someone else? If it was you, then you won't die. If it was someone else, you will die. But the reverse is also true. For example, if the person called "Marblehead" 10 years ago was you, then you will die, but if it wasn't you, then you'll live forever.

I like this a lot! This method has no nuts and no bolts, but it's not for the lazy. Leaving things behind is difficult for me. If I can leave my body behind, I can't leave my parents behind. If I can leave my parents behind, I can't leave humanity behind. If I can leave humanity behind, I can't leave sanity behind. So it's not so easy, at least not for me. "Would one cultivate the mortal to become immortal" -- indeed.

Thanks CowTao, it's a pleasure to hear from you. I hope I don't intimidate anyone. I don't want to impose on this forum any more than only what's necessary to say what I think. Of course I have my views, but I don't dream of one day making everyone share my views. I won't lie -- I would like to have at least a few like-minded people to talk with though. So, when people say they don't "do" "mind", what is the meaning? Is it an admission that we have substance to contend with, and thus, why waste time with the mind? Kind of like, we have these bricks to move, stop thinking about it, and let's load up the truck? It's a valid way of thinking if you believe that mind is just a side-show, just a distortion upon a perfectly objective and independently existent world. I don't believe the world exists objectively or independently, and that's why for me the mind is not just a side-show, or a distortion, but is the key player in the game, the Lord who sits in the place of power. If people believe that substance is objectively and independently existent, and behaves according to studiable laws, then of course the mind just seems like a detour. In that sense, the best the mind can do is to reflect the state of the substance accurately. But, as I said before, if someone chooses to believe in substance, why not go with science? Science has achieved much more impressive matter conversions than any yogi I've ever heard of that was not presented as a myth. I share your views for the most part. I do think Chuang Tzu talks about dying well, but not as directly and as vividly as the Tibetan Book of the Dead. And this brings me to an interesting point that's been very useful to me. I always try to understand what Bardo is like. At first I thought it was dreamy, but then I realized, since the psychic basis of this world dissolve, the vividness of Bardo becomes unparalleled, meaning Bardo appears as crispy, as viscerally as this here awaking experiencing that we experience right now, even as we read and type on this forum. Then I thought, in Bardo, I will be potentially challenged by various beings who will look imposing and quite real, and who will tell me everything about me, about their own selves and who will then try to impose on me in some way. But then I thought, this is exactly what's going on now in this world now! So, let's say, if I am quite scared and intimidated by the visions in this world, such as cops, or let's say muggers or gang members, then what hope do I have in Bardo, which will appear as viscerally and as authentically as this appearance? It seems to me that the only way I can be certain not to fall for any suggested meanings of Bardo visions, is if I am completely fearless right now and completely cognizant of the suggestive power of all the visions that appear right now. In other words: Bardo is not later. This life is Bardo. If I wait to recognize something later on, or if I wait for my opportunity of fearlessness until after I die, I am trapped in this Bardo that appears now. When I reflect like this, it helps me a great deal and it's really affecting how I relate with the world and other people and myself. It's a slow process, but with every time I reflect like this, there is a tiny change that seems to be accumulating. No problem. I think reading everyone's replies is helping me learn.

The way I understand the word "soul" it means to me the same as primordial awareness. Because that's how I understand it, I don't think souls are strictly separate to begin with. For example, your soul is not strictly separate from my soul. I would say I am an aspect of your being, from your POV. From my POV, you are an aspect of my being. Neither I nor you exist objectively. I am a vision and "my" soul is what sees that vision. Since the soul is not limited by the kinds of visions it can see, it is not quite correct to say "my soul." Ultimately I am a soul, but when I say that, I am not speaking as goldisheavy or as some limited personality fragment. If I am speaking as an individual, I can't say "my soul." Let me try to illustrate that by referring to a cartoon. Suppose there is a cartoon where a Mickey Mouse makes a guest appearance. In that cartoon Mickey Mouse is just one of the characters, appearing temporarily. Mickey Mouse can say "this is my cartoon" and while it's not 100% wrong, it's not entirely correct either. Cartoon is something much wider than just Mickey Mouse. Cartoon can be just fine with Bugs Bunny as its main character, or it can even be blank, just as fine. So when Bugs Bunny appears, if Bugs says, "This is my cartoon" that's not entirely right. So I am like that Mickey Mouse that temporarily appears. My soul is like that cartoon, but with an exception: normally we objectify cartoons. So normally we think there is just one cartoon, or just a limited, and finite number of definite cartoons. So in this sense, my soul is more like all possible cartoon-space rather than any cartoon. And in this sense, my soul cannot split or assemble, it has no fragments and it cannot be united with anything either. It cannot be counted, because counting only applies to the objects that appear in cartoons and no more. Because that's how I choose to interpret "soul", if B.K. Frantzis said similar things to me about the soul, none of those things would make any sense to me. This seems very much like what Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu and Lieh Tzu talk about. How does energy practice help a person to be more at ease within one's own skin and environment? Doesn't it introduce an extra variable -- subtle energy that flows along the meridians -- that you now need to be cognizant of, and to control? Doesn't it make things more complicated than they already are? Ok that means immortals can't have a stable identity, correct? If that's the case, maybe you are already immortal? When we believe we are mortal, what are we saying? As far as I understand, we are talking about either a body or identity. So either the body dies, and that's what mortality is. Or maybe it's not just the body, but the whole identity dies too, and that's what mortality is. If immortality doesn't imply some experiential aspect remains constant in the middle of all the change, maybe we are already immortal? And what would that aspect be? Would it be your memories? Would it be a constant recognition of some principle? So for example, let's say a being gets reborn over and over, and in each rebirth, all the memories are wiped, but there is a constant recognition of the empty nature of phenomena -- would you call a mindstream that manifests a series of such beings, "an immortal?" So is all this a case of "Let's just practice it, and see what happens?" without much thought given to how it could possibly be and what it would be like? I don't really know either and I agree with you that immortality is possible. Thank you for replying.

Tyler, so basically you seem to question the idea that there is a personal God, a God as a cosmis person with a free will, right? You think that Tao is like an impersonal God, without free will, and more automatic, right? Do I understand correctly? My question to you is this: if God is like a force of nature that exists and permeates everything and is automatic and subject to some kind of universal laws, why call it "God"? Why even think about it? And also, how will this type of God be any different from the Western conception of substance-matter-energy, which fits that description perfectly ("something that exists as a force of nature, objectively, independently, subject to laws, etc."). In this case it seems to me that God simply becomes substance. When I talk to physicalist atheists I like to tell them that substance is their God. They tend to get offended because they don't understand that substance must be taken on faith, just like God. All we have are our experiences. Nothing in our experience suggest an objective substance. If we hold to a materialist mindset, we simply have faith that there is substance "out there." In any case, I enthusiastically mirror your concerns about the concept of a personal God. I just don't think you go far enough. I think it's a good idea to ignore the concept of God, or even Tao, altogether, and to simply focus on why you needed that concept to begin with. Chances are you needed the idea of God or Tao to solve some kind of problem in your life. I would ask you to revisit that problem. To recall the original problem. Consider that problem one more time, and ask yourself if there is any other approach to that problem that simply does not require reference to God or Tao. That's all. By all means I am not telling you how to be or what to believe. If you think that the idea of Tao is simply fun, then good for you and more power to you. If my assumption that you have a real concern that you're trying to solve with the idea of an impersonal God is wrong, and if you are investigating the notion of an impersonal God purely out of idle curiosity, please forgive me and carry on. Chuang Tzu mused something like this, paraphrased, "When you catch a rabbit, you get rid of the rabbit snare and keep the rabbit. Words are like snares, and ideas are like rabbits. Once you get the right idea, forget the words. Where can I find a man like that to have a few words with?" So once you get what the word Tao is trying to tell you, you can then forget about the word. You don't need to refer to Tao. If you continue to refer to Tao, you turn Tao into some kind of substance and that's not what Tao is. You can't study the Tao like you can study a substance. So once you understand what Tao means, you don't need to talk about it too much.

Tyler, I am going to summarize each paragraph of your initial post to show I how understand each paragraph. Hopefully this will help you understand why I have replied as I have. OK so the title of the thread is "Questioning some thoughts on 'God' and human progress towards enlightenment', and "the relationship between the two" refers back to the title, meaning the relationship between God and enlightenment. "I am not my teacher's favorite student and my teacher has been arrogant to me in the past. My teacher is not a complete asshole, but nonetheless, he has been known to flake out." "I can't believe my teacher would actually be bad. Teachers don't work that way. All teachers are good. So I need to justify my teacher's behavior by citing a case of some famous teacher from the past who has behaved similarly to my teacher. Aha! Looks like J. Kirshnamurti and Alfred Korzybski had similar personalities, so there is a good chance my teacher is OK just like J.K. was also OK. Still, I am critical of J. Kristhamurti's approach to teaching ('just do it'), so maybe my teacher is really not OK after all." "The idea of God seems contradictory to the idea of personal responsibility." "Maybe God does exist, but is not like a sentient being with free will?"

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/chemistry-volatile-history/ I thought this was a very fascinating documentary. In the beginning it touches on alchemy, which I thought would be interesting for at least some people here. I think there is a lot to this story, if you can read between the lines. What it all took to discover and how great intellect often exists on the boundary of madness. I find that very interesting and relevant to spirituality. Watch how some people's ideas changed over time and what it took. Another thing that I find incredible is how hard people struggled against the unknown when it seemed like nothing would come of it. It's almost madness, or maybe it really is madness to look for something you really don't have any obviously rational reason to look for. Some of these reasons appeared later, but often at the time of the initial discovery, many leaps seem crazy and improbable. I have to admit that some time ago I would find all this completely at odds with spirituality. But I no longer see any contradictions. This is just one dream out of many possible dreams, as far as I am concerned.

Right. If their teacher has asked them to keep it a secret, and it turns out they've been leaking secrets, they will lose standing with their teacher. As you can see, neither teachers of the restricted systems, nor students, will have interest in an open sharing. In the old days, having some secret knowledge was a way to have power over competing clans. Nowadays it's a way to retain artificial scarcity, to keep the value of the product high on the market. Meanwhile, away from the dark corners, teachings flow openly on the bright open meadows, right in your own back yard. But we say it can't be that good. We must depart and look inside a dark corner. Surely good things must be well hidden, like the life giving air. You really have to travel all over the world to learn how to breathe air, so as to have life.

Well, demonoid, ostensibly is seeking to avoid confrontations with the court system. Do you really think you will be persecuted? I don't think anyone cares. Unless you plan to stand in the middle of some Church yelling how people will go to hell unless they practice Microcosmic Orbit, there is no problem. Google had to control the influx of the users because they had to allocate server resources efficiently and organically. Google had this policy only short-term, in order to avoid overwhelming their server capacity. Alternatively Google could have guessed the worldwide demand for gmail, and to be on the safe side, double the server allocation. This doubling would be necessary to avoid making an accidental bad first impression, and it would cost money. If you artificially slow the influx of the new users, you can buy more servers as needed, without the need to make a maximum projection and then double it just to be on the safe side. Short version: demonoid wants to keep a low profile to avoid persecution and Google was struggling with physical resource allocations. Do you mind elaborating this? Is this an economic problem? Are these people worried that if the information is freely available they won't be able to sell it? OK, so you think there will be persecution?