dwai

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing...but why a ball then? Why not a pair of dumbbells? If all you want to do is add physical pressure on the fascial web, something that’s easier to hold might be better. The non-physical taiji ball way is to develop the ability to manifest the field between the palms and activate and connect the two laogong points. It also serves a purpose of learning how the taiji jins operate once the student learns to work with the taiji ball. How to expand and contract it, how to make it heavy, light, split it into two, compress it, move it forward, backward and so on. You get the different Jin expressions by this process.

I find this other video explaining another concept of taiji very well — not using force.

I am very skeptical about this. Can you share some details?

Here’s the method shown by Master Liao, the grandmaster of Temple Style — https://www.taichitao.tv/programs/taichi-connect-engineering-a-taichi-ball-master-waysun-liao-4192020

I trained Yang style before starting Temple style. But I'm referring to the popular styles in general - Temple style is very unique in its approach.

Taiji ball is a very important practice for both taiji as well as dao gong. In fact each and every taiji form movement involves the taiji ball. Those who are unaware of this, simply go through physical postures in their form - they can get really good at it, but it is a pretty yet empty shell (this is where most outer door students tend to remain). When taiji ball is properly introduced, every movement gradually becomes taiji. Most of the “famous” taiji people I see people following these days work inside out. They call this approach “internal” because the internal movements evoke external power/force. Mark Rasmus is an exception. His way is very similar to temple style. Temple style works simultaneously inside and outside. It works on the “outside” (taiji ball) and induces internal release and listening. This is called “indirect method”, where the energy creates the condition of release/relaxation and results in sensitivity, rather than using the kind. Because of the way we work on manifesting the taiji ball, we naturally develop strong listening skill, even at a no-contact level. Typically you’ll hear of ting jin being referred to in the context of internal release and/or two person practice, with physical contact. Slowly, as ting increases, the ability extends to non-physical. On the other hand, in temple style, the fact that we use the taiji ball, naturally produces ting at an energetic level, which doesn’t depend on physical contact. In terms of Dao Gong, there are two aspects of the Taiji ball -- The substantial method and the insubstantial method. The substantial method is the first way we learn, wherein we "make" the taiji ball (using our will/intent). This ball is substantial. The other way is we let the ball form on its own, by emptying ourselves out (this is more advanced). In this method, we empty out and follow the universe (Dao) as it rushes in to fill the empty space (physical, mental and spiritual).

Yes. One big difference with other taiji systems is that in Temple style we focus very early on, in developing the taiji ball (Qi ball) which then informs all applications. Without developing sufficient ting and song we can’t work with the taiji ball properly. By focusing on the taiji ball, we induce ting and song indirectly, and faster than with a system which focuses on releasing from the physical level (imho).

Anyone watched “the legend of Baggervance”? I found it to be a very familiar and inspiring movie when I first saw it, and later on discovered why...It uses “Golf” to present the Bhagavad Gita to the audience!

Made a little snack just now — finely chopped quarter yellow onion, quarter cup of roasted peanuts, a tablespoon of lemon juice, 1 tsp salt, 1/4 tsp black pepper, 1/8 tsp paprika — mixed up.

Autobiography of a Yogi - Paramahamsa Yogananda Vedanta: Voice of Freedom - Swami Vivekananda Jnana Yoga - The Way of Knowledge - Ramakrishna Puligandla One: A Novel - Ricard Bach

What does it mean, to be selfless? I look at it from the perspective of letting go of the limited identity (the body-mind and its domain) and considering a larger identity. This is often the case, though somehow, it gets subsumed into the individual identity. At a basic level, it could simply mean, to eschew petty self-interest for a larger collective (family, tribe, community, nation). At a higher level it would expand the collective all of humanity, and then the entire world and finally the entire universe. Most non-dual traditions aim at the final outcome — but teach and speak of it in different ways. In order for that expansion to be possible, one has to let go of the notion of the limited self-identity. I’m reminded of this nice story a friend posted on FB —

Got this from a post on FB

If you want to be loved, start loving others who need your love...if you want others to sympathize with you, start showing sympathy to those around you. If you want to be respected, you must learn to be respectful to everyone, both young and old...whatever you want others to be, first be that yourself; then you will find others responding in like manner to you. Paramahamsa Yogananda (Where there is light)

To work on the mind indirectly the best way is to selflessly serve a cause. That will purify the mind. Every time a selfish idea or thought arises, turn the mind towards service. A pure mind is a precondition to a strong mind — we don’t want to stengthen a mind that has not been purified, or it will just reinforce and amplify bad habits.

A lot of “access” is predicated upon the kind of limitations that are imposed on us via conditioning. 200 years ago, if someone had visions of deities and conversed with them on a regular basis, they would be considered saints or at least spiritually advanced practitioners. Today they might be locked up in an insane asylum. The limitations are socially and culturally imposed. The more pervasive the culture and cult of individualism and materialism, the stricter and more stifling the limitations (imho). Deities and immortal beings operate at the causal level — we might experience them at the astral or causal levels and the multitude of deities and such beings are essentially all made of the same unbroken awareness. That Awareness (Self) presents itself to the limited self in various forms to help it realize it’s true nature (awareness/Self).

Direct experience I train in both daoist neigong as well as the yogic path (Kriya). I’ve done several years of Tamil siddhar yoga practice too. I’m trying to understand what you mean by differences in subtle bodies because I’ve not seen any differences. Subtle bodies are not dependent on any practice, anymore than physical bodies are dependent on them. Subtle bodies exist as deterministically as physical bodies do. Causal bodies, now, that is another matter — it depends on karmic accumulations (habits and tendencies developed over several lifetimes).

My question is, why are you so sure? There are three ways of knowing something — * direct experience (eg,. You see a fire so you know there’s a fire) * testimony of reliable witnesses (reliable sources told you there is a fire) * inference (you’ve seen smoke in the horizon, and infer that there must be a fire). On which of the above do you base your knowledge (of being sure)?

practices have indeed varied in outer appearance, but there’s still the same subtle channels, etc. For example, one doesn’t develop two central channels instead of one when following different systems. They might focus on different aspects of the subtle body, but not so much in terms of “subtle anatomy”, any more than we’d develop two hearts, five kidneys etc if we did yogic vs daoist practices... And you think the alignment is due to subtle body anatomy? What is “afterlife” according to you? i missed the bolded part earlier. My answer for that is, I know that about subtle anatomy just like I know that the physical anatomy doesn’t change if we speak are born in India or China or North America, or religion one practices or beliefs one has.

Hi David, Welcome to TDB. Can you give some examples? It is true that conceptually, different traditions might have different perspectives on how things are categorized. But does that necessarily translate into different "subtle bodies"? My experience tells me that is not the case. For example, some traditions might consider the body having 3 aspects -- physical, subtle and causal. Others might categorize as 5 aspects -- physical, energetic, mental, intellectual and blissful and so on, or others might call these "physical, astral, causal, light, etc", but these are more categorizations that have significant overlap and have to do with a conceptual framework being employed, imho.

I've never heard of the Manipura mentioned in that way -- but I trust Sadhguru's knowledge of the Yogic/Tantric system. He is a genuine Yoga-Siddha (IMHO as well as many other far more credible friends (than myself) who have a good deal of attainment). I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss what he says. I do know of yogis having such powers. Famously (in the West), Paramahamsa Yogananda would bounce people using his belly (I can't find a reference to this anywhere though). A few years ago, two of my Kriya Yoga friends were mystified by my fajin demos and they asked their teacher how it was possible, and he told them that it was by regulation of prana in a certain way (though I'm not sure he knew how to do it). In terms of the Daoist/IMA perspective, my Sifu told me there are two ways to transfer power (fajin). One is by crashing our force into the ground and using the rebounding force from there, which is depleting. Typical fajin demonstrations use this kind of power, and is cited as a reason why many of the IMA masters died relatively young (in their 50s and 60s). I know a few friends who damaged their kidneys with that kind of fajin practices. The other kind of power transfer is to use what my Sifu calls Surface power, which is not using our own jin directly, but the power that is pervasive all around us -- that kind of power transfer will not drain us. I find this to be true from personal experience (and my Sifu, his Sifu have excellent health, vibrant power, etc well into their 70s now).

This is very succinct and most insightful. But there are provisions for different levels of knowledge, action (non-action) - one in the mundane state and another in a transcendental state (Dao as mystery, ineffable, etc). What is your sense about how the two inter-operate towards the co-creation? I look at Dao being like space (emptiness). So is the co-creation then more about learning how to “operate” in this space? Or is it something more substantive/substantial than that?

In your understanding, do you think of this self-cultivation as a process of building up to something hitherto un(der)developed, or is it more an uncovering of the core of our being?

It’s from a book by John Blofeld titled “The secret and the sublime”, and is attributed to the Daoist master Tseng Lao-weng. https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Sublime-Taoist-Mysteries-Magic/dp/0525473033

This is a "theme" that has repeated itself throughout human history. I'm going into speculative territory here -- maybe it is because humanity was really a very weak species, which was not able to guarantee sustenance, shelter, and security from an evolutionary perspective. Hence the impetus to organize, "hunt in packs", horde resources, and fortify and take on defensive postures vis-a-vis nature (i.e., the elements, other animals, and later between competing groups themselves). I am not very familiar with tribal cultures, but it seems that tribal cultures were not affected/afflicted by this disease beyond a certain level, at least within the context of the tribe. Though it seems tribes waged wars against each other for similar reasons throughout history as well. This survival instinct took on more complex dimensions as we continued to get more "civilized". I feel it eventually boils down to the "self" vs "other" dichotomy. The more artificial the identities and identifications became, the greater was the tendency to discriminate "others" from the "self" and then either seek uniformity or wipe out differences. Maybe it is the ensuing conflict/struggle that leads to evolution. Apparently from a physiological perspective, humans don't need to (won't need to) evolve further. But from an intellectual/psychological perspective, the evolution is still ongoing.

Now, isn't THAT something George Costanza would have loved to have known...