9th

Traditional etymologies elaborating on a word by examining its constituents are in fact quite common. Often, they either involve interpretation of the syllables of the word in connection with verbal roots, or otherwise derive meanings that take syllables as abbreviations of longer terms. In this particular case, you'll find the etymology at the Upanisads themselves, in the Advaya-taraka-upanisad— not a modern source by any count, listed as one of the 108 classical Upanisads in Mundaka as it is. The verse reads as follows: gu-zabdas tv andhakAraH syAt ru-zabdas tan nirodhakaH / andhakAra-nirodhitvAt gurur ity abhidhIyate // 16 // "The word 'gu' is darkness, the word 'ru' is its destroyer; With the destruction of darkness, guru is thus titled." Verses exploring the word "guru" are also found in the Guru-gita: gu-kAraz cAndhakAro hi ru-kAras teja ucyate / ajJAna-grAsakaM brahma gurur eva na saMzayaH // 1.44 // "The syllable 'gu' is darkness, and the syllable 'ru' is said to be light; Indeed, there is no doubt that guru is the brahman that swallows ignorance." gu-kAro bhava-rogaH syAt ru-kAras tan nirodha-kRt / bhava-roga-haratyAcca gurur ity abhidhIyate // 1.45 // "The syllable 'gu' is the disease of this world, the syllable 'ru' is its destroyer; The taker away of the disease of the world, guru is thus defined." gu-kAraz ca guNAtIto rUpAtIto ru-kArakaH / guNa-rUpa-vihInatvAt gurur ity abhidhIyate // 1.46 // "The syllable 'gu' is that which is beyond qualities, and the syllable 'ru' is that beyond forms; By the abandonment of qualities and forms, guru is thus defined." gu-kAraH prathamo varNo mAyAdi-guNa-bhAsakaH / ru-kAro'sti paraM brahma mAyA-bhrAnti-vimocanam // 1.47 // "With the first syllable 'gu', he sheds enlightenment over the qualities led by illusion; With the syllable 'ru', he is the great brahman and deliverance from the knots of illusion." While I am more mystified over the source of the "gu" syllable as "darkness", one of the direct meanings of the syllable "ru", as found in Sir Monier Williams' Sanskrit dictionary, is "to break, shatter". As seen in some of the verses from Guru-gita, the "gu" has been taken as indicating "guNa", the ropes that bind the Atman to mAyA, while the guru is engaged in the "ru", or the act of shattering the illusion. Anything under the guNa is no doubt veiled in avidyA, of which darkness is the mighty emblem — and a common metaphor at that. Of course, the word also means "heavy", that certainly is one of the dozens of dictionary definitions for the word. It also means "great", "large", and "extended". And it also means "hard to digest", "high in degree", "violent", "vehement", "excessive", "difficult", "hard" and "grievous" even. Yet it also means "important", "serious" and "momentous", "valuable" and even "highly prized". But alas, it also means "haughty" and "proud", even if "venerable" and "respectable". Then it also just means "a spiritual parent or preceptor", or in general "parents and other venerable persons" — these two are as much direct dictionary meanings as any of the others given, even if "heavy" and "weighty" happen to be the first in the list. http://www.kheper.net/topics/gurus/etymology.html

right now, its a blank! as incensed appellate moods cross blind highway swords

Yes. They are.

lets put it another way: can you mention if or how you have validated the fact that you exist?

http://www.integralbook.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/GURDJIEFF-G.I.-Life-is-real-only-then-when-I-am.pdf

Yes, this is the actual work. Retreats are only preparation for this, not the answer to it. Retirement is another story altogether. The following quote touches on both topics:

one could call themselves whatever they wish, could they not? for example, I could call myself "King of the World"!

The most profound teachings combine all aspects - body, mind, spirit. It is perhaps rather rare because it cannot be simply constructed intellectually, no matter how much study and research and planning and preparation is involved. Harmony begets harmony. The intent of an individual is not comprehensive enough to achieve this, and that is why such profound teachings are truly profound. The whole is complete, the part is peripheral.

Ive written about this in depth a few times before, although not on this forum. Essentially it boils down to humans' use of tools. Humanity's mastery of tool making and using is the means by which our species has prevailed. Even these words we are using to communicate is only yet another - language itself is one of the oldest tools we have. Humans wield power through tools. They invest power in external devices, and design their lives around this investment. This would be as opposed to investing power within, as in internal development. Use of tools is the epitome of external development. Technology is the modern expanse of of our tool set. The scope and magnitude of what has become possible is quickly outstripping the capabilities of humanity in terms of the responsibility required. With great power comes great responsibility - which people in general do not posses. If you follow this rabbit hole deeply enough, you can find the metaphysical dovetail into ideas of the singularity and the cyberspecies and so forth. As people continue to invest their own personal power into impersonal technologies at the expense of their own internal development, at some point we will reach a critical mass. And yet this is the course that nature has taken. Its not nearly as simple as asking if biological intelligence is simply a stepping stone, because the issue is far more complicated than that. We dont have telepathy, we have phones - we dont have precognition, we have news media - we dont have math skills, we have calculators... etc. I think you get the point.

he did, but to access that information you must first prove that you exist

Mind does not create thoughts in the same way the body does not create carbon dioxide. Both transmute formations of materials into other formations of materials. As long as you are alive, the process of transmutation will occur, and there's no need to get hung up on "not thinking" in exactly the same way there's no need to get hung up on "not breathing". The real question is: is your breath tortured, labored, and a source of ever-increasing tension? Or is it open, natural, and a source of ever-enriching benefit? Dont listen to the words, listen to your experience.

Its more like "especially spiritual leaders and enthusiasts". I would say that for most people, the most confusing aspect is that just because a person has non-ordinary abilities (psychic or otherwise) does not mean that they are a saint, or even moderately psychologically developed. All of that stuff belongs to what you could call the "energetic realm" - not what you might call the "spiritual realm". If you dont understand the difference, its advisable to do some research on it, as there are plenty of materials out there and its a necessary distinction to make. For the general public, there is no distinction at all and their expectations are set accordingly - i.e. incorrectly. Someone mentioned Gurdjieff earlier, so I thought I would post this relevant excerpt from one of his books, regarding "mind bullets" (that's telekinesis, kyle): And then he goes on to detail his realization regarding "self-remembering" which became the central theme of his system. One of the classic resources on this topic is Sri Aurobindo's letter about "the intermediate zone".

While this is unrelated to qigong directly, there was a yoga master named Sri Yukteswar who wrote a book attempting to bridge the christian and yogic traditions, back in 1920. He was the teacher of Paramahansa Yogananda, the famous yogi who came to the USA at that time and introduced yoga to the mainstream western world. The book is called "The Holy Science" and its pretty interesting, especially the part where he describes the experience of Pranava Sabda. I had personally experienced this phenomena a number of times already before reading the book, but had never read about it or anything like it in any other text - so that certainly made me sit up and take notice the first time I read his description. Specifically (emphasis is mine):

if you are interested in qigong, its best to learn from a live teacher somehow or videos would be a next step down from that it really helps to be able to see someone doing the exercises who already has developed the ability to feel energy

mantak has a way of presenting extremely advanced stuff as if it were a mcdonalds value menu or something... im not sure id recommend him for beginners.. its not necessarily "over your head" its just not the best presentation for starting out new IMHO

you'll know it when you feel it

its sorta a joke, sorta not.. kinda like "feet glands" it is possible to "extract" more from the air than common breathing, when it happens you will notice the difference accordingly it has to do with circulating prana through the sushumna (central channel) to the anja and sahasrara

I personally consider commodification of these practices and traditions to be a heinous tragedy, but I still feel that everyone should do as they wish. If someone wants to make a business out of the teachings, go ahead - if someone wants to try to buy enlightenment and wisdom, go ahead. No need for explanations, excuses, etc - Ive heard them all plenty of times. Its complicated because in our times we dont support masters and teachers with donations or charitable contributions as in the past. And for the student nowadays it seems that money should represent (or replace) commitment, dedication, and valuation. So, its a grey issue - but I remain idealistic and traditional about it. "the love of money is the root of all evil" and aint it the truth. Getting money involved is heading in the wrong direction entirely - perhaps plenty feel its "normal", its "common sense" and they have it "under control"... but I take a different approach. How much cash were you born with?

The tree on the hill is its own worst enemy.

Its a prerequisite for cultivating the energy body. There are specific practices to make it happen, but I think its best to let it occur naturally, as you have done. Eventually, this kind of unified nasal breath takes on other qualities as well... as in, the experience of the breath itself changes and has much more depth to it. But that doesnt happen until your third nostril opens.

The "rainbow body" is not something the Tibetans created. Its a description of a certain natural process. Plenty of people have achieved it all over the world, most of them outside a buddhist context. And you wont know anything about them, because their kind of life is just not in the same streams as the rest of the world. Its sorta like how you cant find a rare animal species in the middle of a city.

One day Chu Chuai Tzu said to his teacher, Chang Wu Tzu, “I have heard Confucius say that a sage does not get involved in the world. A sage does not seek gain or try to avoid loss. A sage does not seek anything, and does not even cling to the Tao (the Way). A sage does not use words and when speaking has nothing to say. In this way, a sage is able to go far beyond this world of dust. Now, Confucius thinks these are empty and fancy words, yet I feel they are much like the mysterious Tao itself. What do you think?” Chang Wu Tzu replied, “I think these words would confuse even the Yellow Emperor . . . The sage floats with the sun and moon and joins the universe, embracing it as one great whole. A sage has no use for distinctions and ignores social status. Ordinary men toil and struggle while the sage seems stubborn and dull-witted. To the sage a thousand years is one, the myriad beings of the universe are but one, forming a great whole. “How do we know that loving life is not a delusion? How do we know that in fearing death we are not like someone who gets lost on the way home like a child? “Lady Li was the child of a border guard who was taken prisoner by the Duke of Chin. When first captured, she wept so much her clothes were soaked. But after she adjusted to her new surroundings and luxurious new life, she regretted her tears. How can we know that the dead do not regret their previous longing for life? One who dreams of drinking wine may in the morning weep; one who dreams weeping may in the morning go out and hunt. When dreaming we do not now we are dreaming. We may even dream of dreaming a dream. Only when we awaken do we know it was a dream. Only after our great awakening will we realize that this is the great dream. “And yet fools dream and think they are awake. They pretend to know what is going on, and distinguish between kings and slaves. How stupid! I think both you and Confucius are dreaming. Of course, I am dreaming, too. My words may seem like nonsense, but after ten thousand years, a sage may come along who can explain them and then it will seem like morning.”

"empty mind" isnt the same as an "empty box" dont get hung up on descriptions, practice is practice.. the rest is superfluous at best, unless you plan on being a teacher - and even then you need to understand metaphysical/spiritual/mystical ideas thoroughly before you can express them properly to others.. its not a matter of interpretation, just understanding

The more ordinary expressions given to the highest reality known as Citta are Tathata, "suchness" or "thusness", Satyata, "the state of being true", Bhutata, "the state of being real", Dharmadhatu, "realm of truth", Nirvana, the Permanent (nitya), Sameness (samata), the One (advaya), Cessation (nirodha), the Formless (animitta), Emptiness (sunyata), etc. From these descriptions it is found natural for Mahayanists psychologically to deny the existence of an ego-soul or ego-substance in the Alaya, and ontologically to insist that the tragedy of life comes from believing in the substantiality or finality of an individual object. The former is technically called the doctrine of Pudgalanairatmya, egolessness of persons,1 and the latter that of Dharmanairatmya, egolessness of things; the one denies the reality of an ego-soul and the other the ultimacy of an individual object. Superficially, this denial of an Atman in persons and individual objects sounds negative and productive of no moral signification. But when one understands what is ultimately meant by Cittamatra (Mind-only) or by Vivikta-dharma (the Solitary), the negations are on the plane of relativity and intellection. The term "the Middle" (madhyama), meaning "the Middle Way'', does not occur in the Lanka proper except in its Sagathakam portion. But the idea that the truth is not found in the dualistic way of interpreting existence, that it is beyond the category of being and non-being, is everywhere emphasised in the Lanka. In fact, we can say that one of the principal theses of the Lanka is to establish the Absolute which makes a world of particulars possible but which is not to be grasped by means of being and non-being (astina-stitva). This Absolute is the Middle Way of the Madhyamaka school. 1 The conception of the Tathagata-garbha is not to be confused with that of a Pudgala or Atman. This going beyond all forms of dualism, however differently it may be expressed, whether as being and non-being, or as oneness and manyness, or as this and that, or as causation and no-causation, or as form and no-form, or as assertion and negation, or as Samsara and Nirvana, or as ignorance and knowledge, or as work and no-work, or as good and evil, or as purity and defilement, or as ego and non-ego, or as worldly and super-worldly, ad infinitum —this going beyond a world of oppositions and contrasts constitutes one of the most significant thoughts of the Mahayana. There is nothing real as long as we remain entangled in the skein of relativity, and our sufferings will never come to an end. We must therefore endeavour to take hold of reality, but this reality is not something altogether solitary. For in this case no one of us will be able to have even a glimpse of it, and if we had, it will turn into something standing in opposition to this world of relativity, which means the loss of solitariness, that is, the solitary now forms part of this world. Thus, according to Buddhist philosophy, reality must be grasped in this world and by this world, for it is that "Beyond which is also Within". The Lankacompares it to the moon in water or a flower in a mirror. It is within and yet outside, it is outside and yet within. This aspect of reality is described as "unobtainable" or "unattainable" (anupalabdha). And just because it is unobtainable in a world of particulars, the latter from the point of view of reality is like a dream, like a mirage, and so on. The subtlest relation of reality to the world is beyond description, it yields its secrets only to him who has actually realised it in himself by means of noble wisdom (aryajnana or prajna). This realisation is also a kind of knowledge though different from what is generally known by this name. Without a theory of cognition, therefore, Mahayana philosophy becomes incomprehensible. The Lanka is quite explicit in assuming two forms of knowledge: the one for grasping the absolute or entering into the realm of Mind-only, and the other for understanding existence in its dualistic aspect in which logic prevails and the Vijnanas are active. The latter is designated Discrimination (vikalpa) in the Lanka and the former transcendental wisdom or knowledge (prajna). To distinguish these two forms of knowledge is most essential in Buddhist philosophy.