goldisheavy

I have looked at it. I'm having trouble finding the specific spot that validates your point. I still maintain that Buddha has only ever set himself up as a teacher before others and never anyone else. Buddha said you can learn from from his students, but the students are merely proxies for Buddha's teachings. The students are not supposed to be innovative or creative. In essence Buddha's sangha members function as wires, as conduits between Buddha and the student. But ultimately, in the current world, the teaching proceeds only from Gautama Buddha and never from any teacher of Buddha. Buddha had two Gurus and he's never once suggested that his students should take an empowerment or lineage transmission from any of the two of his Gurus. Never. He's never even complimented or thanked either of his two Gurus. These are facts to the best of my understanding, and I did spend a lot of time reading Suttas, Sutras, Tantras, talking to a shitload of Buddhists, including at least one Buddhist translator monk, at least one loppon and so on. So while I am not going to claim encyclopedic knowledge, I am certain enough to challenge to find me even one instance where Buddha tells his students to take a complimentary empowerment from either of his two Hinduist Gurus. Good luck.

First, let me say, "At least I am in the running." I am joking, of course. I am laughing at you and myself simultaneously. I gave you a link to a precious Tantra text, which in Tibetan Buddhism is considered Buddha nirmanakaya itself. It's far more authoritative than the Dalai Lama. Do yourself a favor and read it. It's worth your time, I promise. I don't recommend some garbage to you. I offer you a precious jewel. "Buddhahood without Meditation" is a profound text. This is the last time I will suggest you read it. If you don't want to read it, your karma is just not ripe for it, that's all. Secondly, and more seriously, it is obvious that your understanding is still wobbly in that you need to lean on an authority for support. I know you won't accept this line and will argue against it, so don't bother wasting your time. We both know how this goes, and this isn't the most interesting part anyway. Exactly. Why is it the problem is yours and not mine? Because we have different mindsets. I take it you won't be so arrogant as to say that your position is objective while mine is subjective, right? If you agree to put your cognition of this topic on the same level as mine, then you prove my point: there is nothing to know outside of mind itself. Even if something external to mind existed, you would have no way to validly infer it, and you'd simply have to take it on faith (exactly the same as Christian belief in God, or as I like to say, physical matter and physical energy is physicalist's God). Well that's your intended meaning. You want the words to point to something outside of themselves. That's the meaning you want and intend your words to have. I understand that. But that doesn't mean there is anything that your words actually refer to. That still remains to be proven. The labels and the things "themselves" are dependent upon each other within the interdependent co-arising. In fact, things have no self, and neither do labels. That's the whole point of Buddhist logic -- there is no such thing as a "thing in itself". This point is fundamental. Delineation is a certain type of mind activity. Take away delineation and there are no more things. You might say that even if your mind is in a non-delineating state, things still exist outside the mind and "wait" to be discovered as soon as your mind comes out of that state. If that's your intent, then I counter it like this: This is nothing more than the evidence of your own bias. You can equally successfully say that "Only undifferentiated basic space exists outside the mind. When the mind enters into a delineated state, things appear inside the mind. But even as things appear, the real and objective non-delineated reality is 'waiting' to be discovered as soon as your mind comes out of that state." See what I did there? I just flipped around what you consider to have ground-level primacy and what is adventitious. So if you consider non-delineated meditative states to be adventitious and external things to be more fundamental, more basic, more essential, more lasting, to have ground-level primacy -- that's just your bias. You can equally successfully consider the reverse of this to be true. You can consider the undifferentiated reality to have ground-level primacy, and thing-appearances to be adventitious. In reality Buddhism goes even beyond this though. This argument, which doesn't represent the fullest extent of Buddhist insight, is all I need to counter your silly assertion. The fullest extent of the Buddhist insight is even more radical. It's precisely because things do not exist "out there" that our conceptual labeling is called baseless in Buddhist logic. If you think that Buddhists believe our labels have basis, I have a surprise for you: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn...5.207.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...4.024.than.html Absurd. When does the ability to distinguish labels from appearances arise? If it arises before the appearance, then mind pre-exists appearances. If the ability to distinguish appearances from labels arises after appearances arise, then how can one determine that "appearances arose?" That's one counter. Another equally good counter is to say that labels are appearances themselves and to distinguish appearances from labels is without meaning in the final analysis. Your argument foolishly depends on the idea that appearances are inherently different from labels. Ok, I've had enough for now.

You can't practice it. You can't fail to practice it. All you have to do is reflect on the perfection of wisdom every day and the mind (and all that follows from it, such as conduct, thoughts, feelings, world-appearance and so on) transforms over time. Actually it's not that hard at all. You are doing it right now.

When you find yourself in a dream universe, it does seem like it has always existed. But when you wake up and realize it was just a dream, you know better. Then you realize that entire universe was just a dream and hasn't existed as anything more than mind's emanation. It shows how mind can make something like the universe in the blink of an eye, complete with its past and all kinds of interesting and very believable characters in it. You wish. You are the center of your own universe. Just try to step aside. Ah, there you are, at the center again. Try to step away from the center. The best you can do is imagine the center to be outside of yourself, but that's nothing more than imagination. The truth of your being is always there with you. No matter where you go, there you are. You are one center you can count on. You can't count on Florida or New York being where you are, but you can always count on yourself being where you are, whatever it is you are at the time, there you are. And you cannot run away from yourself. And you cannot step aside even. You can't even more 1 inch to the left.

Not exactly. My view cannot be expressed in a sound bite or a quote out of context.

How long does it take your mind to construct a coherent universe when you go to sleep?

Witch, the body is a little trickier than you imagine it to be. While the body has wisdom, it is not the omniscient kind of wisdom that you must follow at all times. Body can lie too. Ever heard of hypochondriacs for example? That's an example of how the body can lie to you. Do you know that the whole point of wisdom is to maximize the fun? Bringing up wisdom is not an attempt to "rain on your parade" or to "harsh your mellows". I hope that's not how you interpret it. The whole point of drinking 1-3 beers at a time as opposed to 30, is so that you can keep doing it for 90 healthy years so that you can drink more beer in the long run. Moderating fun is done precisely to have more fun. And I am not saying there should be some kind of anal retentive measure to it. I just rely on my gut sense. Say one day I have 1 beer. Next day I have none. Next day I might have 5, and then I might have none for a while, and then 2. Do you see what I am trying to say here? So it's not like being a robot and it's not like my spontaneity is totally inhibited either. I know measure, but I can also exceed my measure within reason. Anyway, I think I've said all I wanted to say and beat this topic to death. By all means let the orgasms commence! Seriously. And let the fun continue.

I am less of a jackass than you, if you think about it. Whatever you feel, it is not the non-dual presence. That's just logic. Non-duality is not a perception and duality is not a perception either. Non-duality and duality are simply views. For example, if I pick up a spoon from the table, the feeling of the spoon in my hand is neither dual nor non-dual. What's dual about it is my view of what it is exactly I am feeling. My interpretation of what's happening -- that's what's either dual or non-dual. So if you don't understand this much, you simply reveal your ignorance. I know that you don't see it. I gave you a good link. Do you mind providing me with a reference? Dalai Lama is not The Pope Of Buddhism, nonetheless I'd like to see this in context. Is that how you interpret things? I always condescend? I don't agree. But if you want, you can try to adjust my attitude. I welcome your efforts. It is mind that distinguishes sentient from non-sentient. Without some kind of opinion about the nature of sentience, there is no way to distinguish sentience from the absence of sentience. There is no such thing as something that's inherently insentient. And by "inherently" I mean something that's insentient regardless of mind. It is mind that makes sentient things appear sentient and makes insentient things appear insentient. Outside of mind there is neither sentience nor insentience nor any combination thereof.

If there is, you can only take it on faith. There is no way to know for sure if objective world exists, because all you have are your subjective senses. Objective world does not exist. But if it did, it would have to be taken on faith and could never be proven or demonstrated. You don't understand Buddhism then. May I suggest you get a book called "Buddhahood without Meditation" and read it carefully? It addresses this very topic. To give you a quick and short answer, there is no world apart from your mind. In my opinion you're a smart person and you have the capacity to understand a book as lofty as "Buddhahood without Meditation". http://www.amazon.com/Buddhahood-Without-M...6273&sr=8-1 So then you don't understand the meaning of "If a tree falls in the forest" koan. Thanks for expressing this. It's funny how you came here and taught us all Buddhism in the begging. Remember that? I knew you were ignorant though, but I thought it was hilarious how you were teaching us Buddha Dharma. No harm done. It's all good. Sometimes the only way to learn you are wrong is to try to teach people what you think is right and watch what happens. You have a loooong way ahead of you. Cheers!

Vajra, please. You know damn well that if you say "Buddha" in the singular, unqualified, it refers to the one historical Buddha, Gautama Buddha as described in the Pali Canon. So if you're talking about one Buddha, it's always the Gautama Buddha and there is no ambiguity about it. If you want to think that Padmasambhava is a Buddha or that Garab Dorje is a Buddha or that Tonpa Shenrab is a Buddha, that's fine, but then, you must qualify that. You must say, "one of the later turnings of the wheel Buddha" or just name them specifically, as in, "Padmasambhava did this and that and said this and that." If you don't qualify your statement, and if you just say "Buddha" it always and unambiguously refers to Gautama Buddha. Second. You have no idea how crazy some of the Buddhas were. Not all the Buddhas were these smooth characters that did everything by the book. So don't try to look at reality through your rose colored lenses Vajra. Take off your spectacles please and face reality. And in reality over here some Buddhas were assholes, some were nonconformists, and what have you. And no, not all teachers universally praised their teachers. Not all teachers had teachers. Not all Buddhas were happy with their teachers. In particular, even if you accept later Buddhas (which, by the way, is not unanimously accepted! It's purely a Tibetan thing. Theravadins do not accept Padmasambhava as a Buddha and in fact they don't have any reason to believe Padma even existed), even then, you must admit that Gautama Buddha, the most famous of the Buddhas on this planet, was not happy with his teachers. So let's repeat this again for clarity. Gautama Buddha was not happy with his teachers. Gautama Buddha never, ever recommended that any of his students learn from his teachers. Gautama Buddha never, ever recommended that any of his students learn from unseen teachers. Gautama Buddha has only ever presented himself as a teacher and never any other person. Gautama Buddha has more or less never had one positive thing to say about any of his teachers or even his parents, or his household -- he left all of that behind and didn't regret it one bit. Not only that, but he even recommended this to others as well! In a word, Gautama Buddha would be a terrible Confucianist! Gautama Buddha broke every principle of Confucianism, and that's how it should be. To try to blend every spiritual leader into a single vision is a distortion of reality my friend. For example, Mohammed was a child rapist. If you can't admit that because you like your buddies, you are weak. Take off your rose colored lenses and face reality. Not everything is pretty in reality. Not everything is how you think it should be. Lots of people were assholes. Mohammed was a bloody and bood-thirsty warlord. And Gautama Buddha was not a boyscout you make him out to be! And if you look into some other Buddhas, like say Tapihritsa, he was pretty "spicy" too, shall we say. He showed disrespect to at least one prominent teacher, who later became his student. In terms of ordinary social rules of conduct, Tapihritsa was an asshole, but he didn't care and he gets away with it because he's Tapihritsa. Personally I like reality the way it is. I don't like when people distort reality to support their own bullshit. And by the way, I took the word "bull shit" from your own post. You were using it first, so I felt free to reply to you in kind. I added "fucking" in the middle, because that's my own creativity. I take your spice and add more salt to it to make it my spice. Things are not the way you think they are Vajra. You need to wake up and smell reality brother. There is wisdom here and there, so do take the wisdom. But don't try to pretend everything is perfect and flawless. Dirt is pure not because it's pure, but because it's dirt and it's correct to call dirt dirt. That's why we say it's pure. Do you understand this? Don't try to dress up dirt. Don't put perfume on dung brother. Dung stinks and that's how it should be. Don't try to make it smell good. Oh yea, that means you know something. Not. Bullshit. What makes Buddha real are two things: Bodhi. -- this is Buddha's enlightened mind. And willingness to teach others how to reach that same bodhi -- this is what separates Buddha from Pratyekabuddha. That's it. Buddhas don't have teachers and can't have them even if they wanted to. Why is that? Because Buddha's bodhi is, by definition, unexcelled. Do you know what "unexcelled" means? It means there is nothing more excellent than it. In other words, when Buddha awakens, he or she realizes that everyone else is dumber than they are. That's just reality! I'm sorry if this offends you. No I am not sorry. If this offends you, so be it. Wake up brother. That's true too, but you don't know how this really works yet. No brother, I don't go there. I start there and then go toward ignorance. I do whatever I want. Mohammed is an idiot. He's also my brother and I know what I'm talking about. He's the family bad apple, if you know what I mean. I am not proud of him at all. If I go to my friend's house I never admit Mohammed is from my family, because he's crazy and ugly and we generally like to keep him locked up in the basement and hope no one ever finds out. In case you haven't noticed, you're not much different from me and in many ways I am here actually defending you 24/7. Do you realize that? Like when you try to teach people something as if you know anything? You have no business doing that at all. You were mixed up in some crazy cults, and everything you know is pretty questionable, and yet here I am defending your right to teach people your crazy blend of nonsense. Because as silly as you are, you have a bit of wisdom somewhere, I am certain of it. And even a bloodthirsty crazy tyrant like Mohammed had a thing or two to teach us, same as Hitler and Stalin. At the same time, I would never set up Hitler or Mohammed as a role model for the general population. Appreciate your attention.

This is pure and utter bull shit. Buddha was discontent with his teachers. It's fucking clear and obvious if you read all the authentic accounts. Buddha has never been grateful to his teachers and has never said something like, "Well, I wouldn't be here the way I am without my teachers." Never. There are Suttas that describe Buddha's attitude, and it was more like this: Buddha: Dear teacher, please teach me. Teacher 1: Ok, do this and this. Buddha: Done. Teacher 1: Wonderful! You are now teh shiznit. Please join me in teaching our illustrious doctrine and please feel free to consider yourself enlightened/fully cooked/whatever you wanna call it. Buddha: I am not feelin' it. This blows. This guy sounds like a moron. Let me see if there is a teacher around here who actually knows his ass from his elbow. (Buddha searches around for another teacher, having been dissatisfied with his first one) Buddha: Are you better than Teacher 1? Teacher 2: Yes, my teaching is much more profound. Buddha: Wonderful. I am all ears. Teacher 2: Do this and this. Buddha: Done. Teacher 2: This is it. I taught you all I can. Buddha: You're a fucking moron. It's obvious I can't learn from any of these so-called "teachers" around here. I must go meditate on my own. This is roughly how it went. Buddha was not happy with his teachers. Buddha has never, ever, ever, ever recommended any of his teachers to any of his students. Ever. Not for advice. Not for empowerment. Not for any reason. So whatever bull-fucking-shit you like to spread around here Vajra, please don't mix Buddha into it. Thank you and Salam aleikum brother.

I very much agree with this.

You're still very young. You're fortunate to be aware of higher concerns so early in life. But at the same time, don't stress over it too much. If you stress over your spiritual progress, then spiritual progress defeats itself, doesn't it? Spiritual progress is supposed to reduce stress and not increase it. I think your ideas about what is pure and what is impure are naive. I suggest you question all your assumptions from time to time. Before you commit to a path, you should try to understand what it is you want in life. It would be silly to take a train to Florida if you want to end up in Ontario. This is why you should at least know the general direction you should travel in before you embark on a path. If you don't have an internal compass, it's possible that your path will become just another distraction and a detour. But don't worry too much. Even a detour can be a good learning experience and a source of wisdom. The easiest and most effective thing you can do right away, is to become mindful. Be mindful 24/7. Pay attention. You can still do whatever you are doing, just don't do it mindlessly. That's the easiest and most effective thing you can do, in my opinion. You can begin immediately, and all it takes is your firm resolve. You don't have to rearrange your furniture to begin and to continue paying attention. Pay attention to how you feel. Pay attention to how you think. Pay attention to how others feel. Pay attention to how others think. Pay attention to everything. Don't be mindless. Do not be quick to assume things. Many things you currently take for granted as self-evident truths are false assumptions. Still, there is no need to freak out or to hurry too much. This is a marathon and not a sprint. Take your time and be thorough.

I think this is a good article overall, although I don't agree 100% with everything in it, but mostly I agree with the general sentiment and with the two pools metaphor. I strongly disagree with this bit. At first, it sounds nice, but it is naive. So let's look at the superficial layer of truth in this first. I have to note, that this superficial layer is very deep to some people and it takes them an entire lifetime to realize its truth, so it not absolutely superficial. It's superficial to my mind. The most common example of a false identity is identifying ourselves as a body. In this sense, if I am a body, then whatever hurts my body is bad for me. Whatever cajoles, coddles and protects my body is good for me. And we face life from this point of view. So for example, having a house is good for my body, because that's how the body is protected from the elements. Having a house takes money. Having money takes a job. Having a job takes employment. Employment takes a positive view of the employer toward the employee. Now, if some coworker says something negative about me, there is a worry that this opinion will become shared by my employer, and my employment is in danger. Since my employment is in danger, my income is in danger. Since my income is in danger, my ability to pay for the house is in danger, and so on, until you get to the point that my body is in danger. So, most people spend lifetimes just to stop identifying themselves as a body. It's a lot of work, and at first, it's also very counter-intuitive, because intuition is a conditioned phenomenon and not necessarily every instance of intuition is associated or aligned with a universal truth. So this is the kind of limited identity the author is talking about, and from this point of view, the article seems to make sense and it seems like a good and helpful article. However, the quoted part of the article is wrong and is potentially harmful in the long term. At some point you can transcend your identification as a body. And indeed many many fears and stresses become lifted at that point. Suddenly you're not afraid to lose your job. You're not afraid to get sick. You're not afraid to die and so on. This is better than before. But is that it? Is this nirvana? Hell no! Why not? Because even though I no longer have an opinion about myself and what am I, I still have an opinion about other people! I still think other people should be happy. And it just so happens that other people are at odds with each other. So even if I think, let others do what they want with me, but if I also think, I don't want others to come to harm, them I am in hell. I am in hell, because even though I don't have an opinion about myself, I have an opinion about others. Maybe I am not a body, but others sure are, or at least, others think they are. Aha, but what happens if I transcend even this level of identity? I have to get rid of my idea about what others are too, right? Suddenly people are not people anymore. How about their opinions? If my own opinions about myself don't matter, do others opinions about themselves matter? If yes, I am in hell. If not, look what happens next. If I liberate my mind from other people's opinions about themselves, I am free to treat other people however I please. I can cook them for dinner. I can grind them into dog treats for my dog. I can use people however I please, and this is even made easier by the fact that I don't fear for my own safety. This might indeed be nirvana for me, but is this nirvana on the whole? If I am sensitive to other people's suffering, I will have to suffer. If I completely free myself from suffering, there is absolutely no way I can be sensitive to other people's suffering. I am not going to say what is right and what is wrong. I am not going to say what you should or shouldn't do. But this is something you need to consider at some point, no matter what you decide. And this is why simplistic Zen, simplistic Buddhism, simplistic Daoism is garbage. This is why religion is a failure. Even a very beautiful and subtle dogma like Buddhism is a failure in the grand scheme of things, because it is ultimately dishonest.

I think that's a nice ability to have. I am pro-fun. The more fun the better. But at the same time, amidst all the fun activities, I think we should attempt to become wiser too. If we focus on fun to the exclusion of wisdom, we are on our way to hell. (I don't believe in literal hell, I just mean a miserable life). However, if you pay attention to wisdom, and in general, if you just pay attention and are mindful in life, then fun is good! Fun is harmless and very good, provided you are mindful and make wisdom a priority in life. That's how I look at it. How do people get into trouble in life? I think most trouble happens when people chase fun to the exclusion of wisdom. So for example, we drink alcohol for fun. I drink alcohol for fun. But what if I had in my mind, "if one is good two is better?" Well, then I'd drink 2 beers in a go. Then I would think "if one is good, two is better" again, and double the amount of beer again, and drink 4. Soon I would be up to 16 beers and an alcohol poisoning. This is how due to the presence of a single deluded thought, I can take something fun, like beer, and make it unfun and even dangerous. And this deluded thought can only get into my head if I don't pay attention. If I am paying attention, I will realize that beer has consequences, and that it should be drunk in moderation to maximize the fun aspect and to minimize the negative consequences. This way I can drink an endless amount of beer. But if I drink say 30 beers at once, I can die right on the spot due to alcohol poisoning. If I drink 1-3 beers a day, I can drink for my entire life and be happy. I am strongly pro-fun. Have your beers, pot, acid, shrooms, get your tattoos, dance, do weird things, run around naked, whatever. Have tons of orgasms. Whatever you enjoy. But I never put fun ahead of wisdom and don't recommend anyone else do so either. That's all.

It depends. This can definitely happen. But it's not always what I think about. Most of the time I just enjoy the sensations and I really don't think about anything per se. I am way too busy paying attention to various sensations that arise during sex to think about stuff. And even if I am thinking, I am probably thinking about a threesome or something like that. Basically adding fantasy on an already pleasurable experience. That's true. This doesn't contradict what I was saying earlier about unity though, does it? Let me give this example. My body is already one. My two hands, since they are part of one body, are already one. Nonetheless, if my hands are cold, I can rub them together to get some pleasant warmth into my hands. Did I unite my hands in the rubbing? Or was I able to rub them together because my hands were already one in the first place? I think the second description is more correct and more relevant. If you think that hands are only united in the act of rubbing, then you're missing out on an important and essential oneness that is always there. Well, human warmth is a very, very nice thing, and you won't find me putting it down. However, is it the only thing worth striving for in life? I don't think so. I strive for wisdom and for inner freedom.

Well, it's possible that your family has real grievances with life and that maybe if you understood their grievances you would understand their pain and wouldn't be so judgmental toward them. It's also possible that your families grievances are mostly delusions. However delusion is like a sickness of the mind. What kind of attitude do you take toward sick people? Do you call sick people negative and avoid them? Or do you help them heal? Would you ever be a doctor to a person? If you never want to heal the sick, I think your positivity is nothing more than airheadedness and stupidity. You know, positive people can be positive due to delusion too, right? Are you sure you're positive for a good reason and not because you have your head firmly buried in the sand? Lots to think about.

Not to me. I must be slow. The only self-evident thing in the beginning is that orgasms are pleasurable. But then you could ask, "What is pleasure for?" and we're back to square one. So, does this mean that prior to orgasm, or without one, we are separate? And after one, or during one, we are mystically united? There is a saying that each person is a cosmos. May I suggest that orgasm is an ornament of a primordially present unity? I agree.

What are you after? If I want to hang a picture on the wall, I shouldn't buy an automobile. If I want to drive across country, I shouldn't buy hammer and nails. Automobile is expensive. Hammer and nails are cheap. It all depends on what you want. And then there is public transport and hitchhiking, and as for pictures, there are wall paintings, fresco, or wall paper as options. Some people just enjoy the beautiful shadows dancing on their wall, shadows cast by the trees outside. That's picture enough to some. Some people think that a black square on white background is a beautiful picture, and others don't even consider that to be a picture. Some people think that horses are good for transportation, and others think they are only good as pets, and not so good as transportation. So everything depends on what you want. Think about it. If your master said that "you can learn this wisdom anywhere," would that make you want to spend money for it? But if he says, "you can only learn this wisdom from one place," how about then? When money enters the picture, master's integrity is invariably compromised. Master has to decide whether to make money or to be honest before thyself. Often you really must pick one or the other. By often I mean 99.99999% of the time. As soon as you start taking money, your interest in money invariably bends how you present your wisdom. It invariably makes you do and say things to make what you teach appear more valuable than it is, and to make it appear more rare and more unobtainable than it is, but at the same time, those very same things are lies before the spirit. --- Let me ask you this too. If someone said to you, "I will teach you something very good, and you should pay me what you think it's worth." Would you be generous and sincere? Or would you be stingy and hold back? If you're stingy, that could be one reason why master is asking for high price from you. If you're generous, maybe the master will teach it for free. This could also be a possibility. Assuming you're a sincere and generous soul though, and the master still wants to charge by the move, you have a rotten master there, no doubt about it.

In real life the stress of working for a bad employer and living in an unfair and unjust society can kill you faster and more surely than any UFC or K-1 fighter. So you could be training hard to beat people up, only to succumb to poverty, or to a stroke, or to cancer. Having good life is more important than kicking people in the rear. Although I admit that kicking people in the rear is fun sometimes. I like watching Fedor fight now and then. But fighting is about winning a localized peak struggle. The real struggle is not at a peak level though. The real struggle is the day to day life. If you can live day to day without struggle, then you've won the most important match in your life and all the combat fighters can come and learn from you. Oh, and I enjoyed watching all those videos. Thanks for the links. It was fun. I have no opinion about which style measures up though.

It's not so much the game that does the uncovering of the mysteries. It's your insight into it. I think with a sufficiently deep insight into a sufficiently deep game (Go qualifies, imo), you can uncover all kinds of universal mysteries. So I would answer "yes". There is a story about a Buddhist monk being invited to play Go against a master. Even though the Buddhist monk was not trained in Go, he did OK, and at the end of the match said the Go master was enlightened. So apparently at least someone thought there was something to the mastery of Go. Well, that's just a story and I am not 100% sure I got all the details right. You might want to dig through some articles on Go and see what you can find. Go is unique among games in that it teaches balance between offense and defense. In contrast Chess teaches balls to the wall offense and nothing else. The most violent player in Chess wins. In Go if you stick out too far and too fast you lose. Still, even a deep insight into Chess could enlighten you. But then a deep insight into the movements of your own hands could enlighten you. Or the clouds floating in the sky. Or taking a piss. Insight is like that.

What do you want to achieve? In my opinion, Daoist alchemy is a waste of time. There are much more direct and effective practices. Alchemy presupposes a very intricate worldview. Instead of loosing up and questioning your current beliefs, you'll be burdening your mind with more and new beliefs about reality, if you want to do Daoist alchemy. Now, the way mind works, any prolonged practice will be successful, even if you engage in all kinds of useless activity. For example, let's say you want to make your body light. If that's your goal, then as long as you are sincere and constant in your application, what you do, doesn't matter. Even if what you do is stupid or unnecessary. This includes Daoist alchemy. What makes you light in the end is not so much the process of alchemy but really your intent and your resolve to be light. If you understand this, then the process of alchemy is a distraction from the real power that does all the real work. I wouldn't say that all energy work is useless, but if you want to transmute one substance into another, you must start with a belief that there is substance of some kind to begin with. If you don't believe in substance, then what are you transmuting??? So all alchemists invariably believe in substance. But this very belief in substance is also what limits the natural power of mind. An alternative approach to transmuting substance is to undermine or uproot the very belief in substance. If you no longer believe that substance exists, you find yourself with nothing to transmute, and that's the end of alchemy. So when you asks about the specifics of alchemy, first of all, there are various incompatible views about it. Some think there is physical alchemy. Others think it's a spiritual process that nonetheless transmutes physical substance. Others think that alchemy doesn't transmute anything and is purely spiritual, but in that case, you have to wonder if it's still alchemy or just another fancy word for feeling modification? So not only do you get loaded up with all kinds of cultural baggage that's specific only to Chinese culture and is absent from other mystical cultures, but even inside China there is no unanimous consent on what exactly is alchemy. Some Chinese alchemists have spent all their time to develop a pill. Others haven't bothered with the pill. Some are rumored to have died from taking their pill. Others are rumored to have taken flight, straight into the sky, as immortals. So keep in mind, this is the tradition you seek answers from, a tradition that is unstable and is uncertain and is localized in China. This is why I am not an alchemist and advise anyone who would listen to avoid alchemy. This doesn't mean there is no such thing as a magical transformation or real power. There is. But alchemy is not a good way to discover it, in my opinion.

I don't think orgasms have to be sexual, but in my mind, the word or the idea of orgasm is associated with a peak experience of some kind, and I never think of orgasms as something subtle. But ecstasy can be subtle and long-lasting. Another thing is that, like you said, I think that orgasms involve pulsating of some kind. Ecstasy can be smooth and even and doesn't have to be pulsating. I think orgasm is a type of ecstasy. Ecstasy is a wider idea that includes orgasm into it, but is more than that. I think the non-sexual orgasms are very rare. I doubt many people have them, especially not anyone who hasn't specifically learned to have them. In any case, I am not an expert on orgasms, or on ecstasy, for that matter. I have nothing against orgasms or various ways to learn about ourselves. I just think that if you reach a certain level of mastery with orgasms, maybe it's time to try other things. I think if you can make people orgasm around you without even touching them, that's pretty masterful right there. Is there any point to develop this further? How about doing this to a stadium of people? To my mind, there is little point in developing that skill further. From the point of view of wisdom, the fact that you can do this, proves that all beings are inseparable. Is there something else to learn from it?

I hope you don't think I was contradicting what you're saying here. Not all ecstasies are orgasms though. I have nothing against orgasms! I hope no one gets that idea from me. I think if you pick one way, you're limiting yourself though. Whatever that way is. If someone only did sitting meditation, I would be questioning the wisdom of that too. Some people think that you need to commit to something. For them "something" has to be a form or a tradition or a teacher. To me "something" is more abstract, it is wisdom. If you commit yourself to wisdom, there is no way you can afford to tie yourself down with one teacher or one tradition or one technique or one way of thinking or one habit or one anything.

I think some people will be skeptical of this, but to me, this is entirely possible. In other words, I believe you 100% on this one. To me the important thing about this is not the orgasm itself, but the fact that we are not really separate. Once you get the idea that we're not really separate, it's no longer important how and where you get your orgasms, in my opinion. Well maybe just getting the idea is not enough. How about getting a firm conviction? After that, it seems the point got across, and any such orgasms are more for fun and pleasure than they are a spiritual cultivation tool. There is nothing wrong with having fun, but at the same time, if you're serious about spiritual cultivation, you have to move on to other practices.