dwai

I just see the truth irrespective of the label , call it what pleases your heart I can see how that shows And then there are those traditions for whom heaven is right here, right now — where ever you are. Yes it’s important to see form and the underlying reality that produces the form. If you do see it, that’s good for you. Sometimes words used indicate otherwise... I’m not confused by anything. I just like to cut through noise to the truth. Thats not a correct view imho. Name and form only appear in the phenomenal (physical or not). You don’t need to do any of that, just recognize the underlying being that illuminates names and forms. The underlying being is simple — if you know it, names and forms will become simple too. Without it, all you can do is see names and forms. No Ned to see any complexity, simply be. it’s not a belief — it is directly known — just have to recognize the underlying Being (Is-ness) — All that appears only appears in awareness. Simple

Why not focus on what you need to become instead? What I can become won’t really help you I’ll let these digs go...attribute to your irritated mind I can dig this. But the physical is rooted in the nonphysical. Now there’s something to this. So physical is complex and nonphysical is simple? So one could get entangled in the complexity of multiplicity of names and forms (physical) or return back to the nondual root (consciousness — non-physical). Not much can be gained from mucking around with the physical beyond a certain point . You might not agree with me, but maybe you’ll understand what I mean someday. You wont know him, however I consider Swami Sarvapriyananda as a teacher, though I’m not a formal disciple. Also I’ve had validation on my Vedantic nidhidhyasana by another mentor who is a direct disciple of two Shankaracharyas (doesn’t want to be publicized). The truth requires no external validation however — it is self evident, and self luminous. When you get it, you’ll know it Now we are discussing spiritual knowledge. Names and forms might be tangible to the senses (ie the mind), but they are not what I would consider “reality” in an absolute sense. The process of spiritual knowledge is a process of subtraction, not addition. Unless one sheds the artificial mind (acquired) and it’s notions, the truth can’t be known. So I insist that simplicity is the way. I see. So a trained mind can handle complexity and remain un-scattered? Would that involve multitasking? Studies have proven that humans are really incapable of multi-tasking, the best the human mind can do, is timeslice single threaded operations more or less efficiently. All one can do is get better at context switching, that’s all. Why do you think when we train for anything, we tackle one thing at a time and slowly introduce additional variables? We are talking about esoteric knowledge here — which is a process of withdrawal (nivritti). If you don’t simplify, you will simply fly (away from the kernel of Truth) back to names and forms.

In Vedanta we call it Aparoksha jnana or Atma jnana or Tattva Jnana or Brahma jnana.

Balance is important irrespective of what conceptual framework is used. Mainly what balance does is allows the mind to be unshackled from taking positions. A balanced mind does not gravitate to extremes, and remaining centered/balanced allows for the mind to be transcended. Yes there are two kinds of knowledge The transactional knowledge of the transactional reality -- that's stuff one can learn in schools, colleges, by experience etc. In the Vedantic tradition we call this "paroksha" jnana. This includes scriptural knowledge as well. There is another kind of knowledge, which is of the absolute reality -- this we call aparoksha jnana -- This can only be known in an instant, via a flash of direct apperception (some teachers might say, a flash of intuition). The Zen tradition would call it "Satori". The "hidden" aspect of spiritual knowledge is really not a "secret" per se. It is "hidden in plain sight". It seems like it is hidden, obscured, etc etc because the mind tends to focus on complexity. The Truth is direct, simple and ever-present. The balanced mind does not obscure this, as it is literally animated by the very Truth that it seeks.

This guy is pretty interesting and he explains the topics we’ve been discussing — Check out his other videos.

This recently hit the YouTube. A most amazing discussion.

Complex and simple is not the same as yin and yang I’m afraid. Complexity and simplicity are functions of the intellect aspect of the mind. The more the mind sees complexity, the more scattered it becomes. A scattered mind is incapable of seeing the nondual reality of the names and forms. It is only capable of seeing names and forms.

that is not my experience or of those training in the style I train in. What is trained is the ability to focus and develop those for specific purposes, not to build dantiens or the 8 extraordinary meridians. I can say with some confidence that we (several folks from within our lineage) can do what the famous internet sifus can do. So evidently the training we do works, irrespective of what conceptualization used. Of course I know different systems have different ideas about these things. Not in my opinion. Reduction is in the mental conceptualization. Nivritti is the process of withdrawing, going from out to in and then reducing all the things the mind attaches to — including dantiens and meridians and so on I certainly prefer simplicity over complexity. I’ve not seen complex stuff to be very effective in the long term.

The subtle body already exists. All we need to do is become aware of it. So yes, while it’s not easy, it isn’t complex either. If we follow certain methods prescribed, with time we will develop sensitivity so we can directly work with it. Both objectives require simplicity. It only seems like subtle body work is complex because of our addiction to complexity. Both require what’s called the path of nivritti or reduction.

As you pointed out, it's just a difference of perspective, that's all. For me, it's a personal choice -- I can either choose to look at the world as a complex system or a mystery to be explored. Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to find errors in freeform's views, but rather, trying to show (somewhat successfully I hope) that there is more than one way to look at/do things. I see a similar "schism" in seemingly opposing perspectives of looking for differences between things or looking for similarities. For instance, I find more (most) things to be similar, sometimes even to the point of just different names for the same realizations and truths between Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism. To me, finding and focusing on differences is a process of rejection, while finding and focussing on the common ground a process of integration. From a spiritual perspective, the Truth is One, so different views are different approaches to that One Truth.

This warrants a highlight and a "well said"!

Why should they not charge for their knowledge. Whether one opts to choose one teacher or another is a matter of personal choice/temperament etc. By that token, teachers and professors should not take salaries to teach. In the current context specifically, knowledge is the primary currency, especially specialized knowledge. So, someone who has specialized knowledge should be able to make a living off that which has taken them many years of work to acquire and refine.

I understand what you're trying to suggest here, but just because something has a lot of detail doesn't make it complicated, imho. When I say complex or not complex, I mean it in the context of learning -- is a function of how much time one has spent, and is a matter of acquisition of appropriate learning. Someone who hasn't learnt engineering mathematics might consider it to be complex, but once one has gone through the prerequisite steps to acquire the appropriate knowledge, it is no longer complex. The more expertise someone has in a field, the simpler the field becomes for them. While someone without the appropriate knowledge might have a nervous breakdown looking at the subject, the expert knows what is important to know and what is not important to know. They know how to separate the noise from the signal, so to speak. When such an expert explains something (a teacher), they can elucidate the subject so the recipient (the student) of the information is not overwhelmed by the subject, and develops confidence in their knowledge as it grows. A good teacher will not scare the bejeezus out of their students by impressing upon them how complex the subject is. On the contrary, the teacher will encourage the students to be confident in their ability to learn, and their ability to explain. That "trust me it's complicated" is a trap --- for both the student and the teacher. I guess what I'm trying to say is, nothing in this world is complex once the knowledge has been acquired. And unless someone is woefully deficient in their intellectual abilities, the only gap is the knowledge gap -- which can be completed with appropriate knowledge. And it's not easy always, and will take hard work often -- but hard work is not complexity -- it's just time and effort. This blog sort of covers what I'm alluding to (wrt thermodynamics) -- https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=762 Take away the following from the graph above in the context of knowledge and complexity -- The greater the disorder (chaos)/randomness of variables etc, the higher the (apparent) complexity. Expertise entails increasing knowledge (minimizing chaos), and therefore increasing simplicity. One thing to understand is that, while it is true that one might be 'overconfident' due to lack of awareness of the unknown-unknowns, that is typically a function of experience. The more one gains experience, the more one realizes that there are things that are outside the boundary of one's field of knowledge. This is what one could call "wisdom". Yup...and only maturity and wisdom (usually develops with age and experience) will take us from "I know it all" to "I know there's a lot that I don't yet know". But just because there are unknowns, again, doesn't connotate complexity -- it is only a matter of time and effort to transform them into knowns.

you mean like yin-yang? everything is via the lens of the mind . How complex or how simple is a function of the intellect aspect of the mind. More/multiplicity is not complexity. Nature operates predominantly as fractals. What is a fractal? A fractal is a never-ending pattern. Fractals are infinitely complex patterns that are self-similar across different scales. They are created by repeating a simple process over and over in an ongoing feedback loop. Driven by recursion, fractals are images of dynamic systems – the pictures of Chaos. Geometrically, they exist in between our familiar dimensions. Fractal patterns are extremely familiar, since nature is full of fractals. For instance: trees, rivers, coastlines, mountains, clouds, seashells, hurricanes, etc. Abstract fractals – such as the Mandelbrot Set – can be generated by a computer calculating a simple equation over and over. https://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-are-fractals/ The famous physicist David Bohm posited that even apparently random occurrences in nature are not chaos implicitly, as they are just enfolded order. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order Didn’t you know? It’s turtles all the way down Ha! and (un)strangely enough I run into this paper — https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/new-hypothesis-argues-the-universe-simulates-itself-into-existence?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3

actually it’s quite the opposite of what you suggest. Complexity, is something that has elaborate rules of understanding, involving extensive memorization, many methods, etc. I find after an initial barrier of learning has been crossed, a very fundamental set of principles govern most things in this world. Hence, not complex. Usually complexity only is in the mind of the novice or the curious bystander. I find the exact opposite to be the case. A seasoned golfer will not even consider all those things you say, they will simply know — all of these are internalized into instinct. All those things you mention are intellectual processes that the mind uses. It is the same as that with a golfer. Programming is actually an art as well as a science. It is a way to express one’s creativity. Everyone looks at things through the lens of their own experiences. It very well might be the case

The UFC was started to promote BJJ and/by the Gracie family. It’s true that the western martial artists of that time were unused to fighting on the ground. That’s why fighters like Dan Severn or the Gracies kept winning. I’ve known many street tough guys to train in traditional karate and they’d fight on the streets (win and also carry scars from those encounters). Similarly, my teacher, his teacher and several of his fellow students (from the seventies) were formidable taiji fighters — many a challenger (from various styles of MA) would come to fight them (sometimes ambush them) and go back in ambulances. But fighting is not the main point of TMA (as many of you have indicated) — it is to cultivate the martial spirit — Wu de/ Budo. IMA goals can be even deeper — with the goal being spiritual cultivation.

That’s part of it. I think so, especially since there are more and more people who consider MMA to be a viable self defense practice. I think collaborations between TMA/IMA and MMA worlds such as these would be very productive.

I actually think that MMA has a lot to learn from traditional martial arts. Most of what we see in the “MMA versus this or that” genre is with low level TMA folks. Just because there are no “secrets” per se, doesn’t eliminate the deep stuff. The IMA use different principles to be functional, stuff that is counterintuitive to the way the EMA work. Maybe that is another reason why students are overcomplicating things in their mind. Instead of developing the ability to feel and sink Qi, develop Jin and use it, they try to see biomechanics and trickery where there is none.

usually one can spot a scamster after being bitten once or twice yes traditional Martial arts is not just for fighting, but to cultivate something far more significant. is it really as complex as you suggest? Once your ailment is identified, 8 times out of 10, the solution is simple and direct. One just needs to have the right knowledge I’m a software engineer by profession, and many would say that writing software is a really complex thing. But even in that, once you know the rules, it is really very simple. And with experience we can do away with more and more complexity, and progressively simple and elegant options arise for what a novice would consider a complex problem. I know the full scoop is there because I can do what they told me I can do, by doing what they say. There is an internal knowledge that arises when the correct teachings are provided, which is really simple...even those teachings that are provided via parables etc (more esoteric stuff). As an example, In the case of my teacher, I know many who get frustrated (and have left him for what they think as greener pastures) because he doesn’t use flowery language and high falutin’ jargon — whatever he says, he means it without any poetic license or sophistry. It is the same way with his teacher too. Long ago, a bunch of indignant students pressed his teacher to ask why they can’t get as good as either the grandmaster or my own teacher. To that, the answer was — “he (my teacher) really listens to and follows what I say. The rest of you have your own ideas about what I mean..he practices diligently and is able to do what I show” (paraphrasing what I heard). One day, my teacher pulled me aside during a visit to his home and said that myself and another brother are the only ones who seem to get what he’s teaching us. Why I wondered? And asked around. Everyone tries to find hidden secrets while the truth is directly being revealed. That too is a possibility. Good point Absolutely. Consistent work and a dedicated practice partner to experiment with. That’s a valid point. But I still think that the tendency is to overcomplicate things.

Hi Shad, Who have you let go of? That which you let go of, was that you at all? All that’s happening is you’ve lost the impetus to act and react in a certain way, because those things you “gave up” are familiar. If you look deeper, you’ll see that “you” are unaffected by it — only your mind trying to hold on to the ghost of a memory.

It’s good, period. Goes beyond just breathing

The active nostril changes throughout the day. Normally one nostril is going to be “more open” than the other depending on the time of the day, corresponding to the yin/yang cycle. The idea is to not have one nostril permanently blocked. Doing NS will balance the energies out in the body.

Been doing nādi shōdhana practice on a daily basis off late — very good for the mind and balancing the opposite energies in the body. It’s surprising how overlooked and under appreciated this simple alternate nostril breathing is. PS - I was taught this a long time ago but I had stopped practicing it many years ago, labeling it as “beginner stuff” 😬

A specific practice taught in the Temple style taiji school of Master Waysun Liao. In my POV, it uses a specific set of qigong and taijiquan single form movements, but with different emphasis and focus along with other seated meditation practices and pointers provided by the teacher.

For me, "To Tao" is to become as empty as possible. By Empty, I mean, first, letting go of layer after layer of "artificiality". By that, I mean letting go of body attachment, mind attachment, intellectual attachment, conceptual attachment. As we shed layer after layer of crud, our true nature shines forth. True Nature is "Tao", so the more "true nature" shines forth, the more "Tao" we are. The way I was taught this is via the practice of taijiquan and neigong/daogong -- with these, the process of letting go is indirect. First, we let go of tensions and stuck traumas/stress. And then we let go of strength, then we let go of mental positions (and they all feedback into each other), becoming more and more 'present'. At a certain point, this produces enough mental clarity to start Self-inquiry. With Self-inquiry, the process of letting go becomes more and more apparent/direct.