Sahaj Nath

hey todd! =) you're exactly right. of course, you probably already know that and are just being modest. effort tends to be why people never wake up. like many a zen master have said: "if you can simply understand that it is not 'attainable,' then you are enlightened. the witness is just an imperfect name for that ever-present I Am-ness that has always been there. it's not an experience at all. and it takes no effort. we're all aware of it right now. it is WuJi. Supreme Emptiness. PURE consciousness = nothingness. however, there IS a world of phenomenon and effort and time and change. there's no sense denying that. but i think meditation is a form of communion with the timeless, effortless, and unchanging. what we experience is not the witness, but the response of our finite selves to that communion. the ego's temporary liberation from its burdens is what a lot of people mistake as as enlightenment. words are cumbersome, but i think we agree.

hey chris, i'm luvin' the jack burton quote in your signature! perhaps my favorite cheesy movie of all time! as to your question: i don't think the witness ever dissolves, although our realization of the witness deepens as we develop. and i don't think it's the beginning OR the end of meditation. we have vehicles that enable us to carry out our tasks, and that doesn't change until our vehicles die. until then, maintenance will continue to be a requirement. if the vehicle is not fit to fulfill its spiritual mandate, i think we waste a golden opportunity to assist in the evolution of humanity. that maintenance includes meditation, exercise, cognition, moral fortitude, etc... so i don't think it ends with a particular experience. but it doesn't begin there, either. =) BUT,

whoever wrote that page obviously has WAY too much of an ax to grind. does his interpretation strike you as credible? i went directly to the original post. defending himself whilst talking shit. blowing off steam. it seems quite in line with his character, and i don't see that as a bad thing. of course, trying to examine it in a vacuum will lead to claims of all sorts of crap. but he's not a guru and never claims to be, though he IS pretty much the top dog in his field. and the guy makes it sound as if ken lost it because of innocent peer reviews that simply (oops! i used the S-word) took a contrary view. this is the kind of spin used to discredit politicians. no one takes a good look, and then the public sentiment gets shaped by the mere repetition of inaccurate claims. there's good stuff in the magazine from time to time. it's made me rethink some assumptions. but for the most part i'm not a big fan of WIE. i don't lay that at ken's feet, though. that's andrew cohen's deal. purity and universal humanity sounds good, but i don't think there has ever been a time in history when that has been the case. ever. maybe it's time to move in new direction. religious institutions have always been political. the distillation of spiritual practice as a means of evolving consciousness might be just what we need to create a universal humanity. spiritual eclecticism with a scholar's sensibility just might produce an internal map that is self-aware of its own dogmatic shortcomings and therefore always open to growth. a worthwhile endeavor, i think.

here's a reason why i love ken wilber. for most scientists, (Karl Popper being the most famous) in order for a proposition to be scientific it has to be falsifiable, i.e., there has to be a way to test it. "i can emit energy from my palm" is a falsifiable statement, but not a false one. "the energy i emit comes directly from Gautama Buddha," on the other hand, can not be tested in any way. illusionists can very likely fake every feat that a master can perform. that only shows that the master's abilities are indeed testable by all known methods of trickery. also, given that some folks are hung up on science, there's another concept worth considering: scientific knowledge is paradigm-dependent. in other words, a person who has never seen, used, or even heard of a microscope, isn't qualified to have an opinion about cellular structure. in order to gain access to the necessary data, that person would need a proper medium to grant them access to that data. reason alone does not suffice. the same is true of what can be realized through internal practice. the specific practice and duration necessary for development is the medium by which one gains access to those experiences. they can't be apprehended through mere reason. other high-level practitioners are the only ones qualified to debate the abilities, and even then it's suspect if they haven't employed the exact same methods. and just like science, reason is also paradigm-dependent. the only way to get to the necessary paradigm shift is to employ the technology, i.e., sit on a cushion for the next ten years and breathe in a special manner. a quote i've used once before: "no, i've never heard of water," said the fish. "why do you ask?"

yeah, i've been on that concept for some time, and his works have really helped me to flesh it out. i don't know about the 'egomaniac' thing or what you mean by 'slay'. of all the things one might say about him, i don't it can be said that he's overly critical or harsh. he tends to be extremely empathetic. i've watched quite a few of his videos and even own a few now. he's brilliant and sometimes exhibits the kind of humor and wit you'd expect from a progressive in the ivory towers, but those types tend to be my kind of people, so his character works for me. hey bindo, things are great. thanks. is there a connection between wilber and aurobindo? the 'synthesis' idea lends itself to integral. 'What Is Enlightenment' is Andrew Cohen's publication. they are not a collective. and, to be honest, i don't really get the relationship between those two guys. Andrew IS a bit of a jerk and not nearly as clear, genuine, or intelligent as Ken, by my estimation. however, Andrew Cohen's character flaws are quite common among high-level teachers, so i can't just assume he's not what he claims. but i'm left wondering if you've actually looked into ken's work, as your criticism seems incredibly general and vague. he IS a bit arrogant in his confidence in his ideas, and he admits that himself. but his confidence is in the ideas, not his own greatness. what he did what study all the major traditions (as well as some obscure ones) East and West, and created a model that's inclusive of all of their truths in addition to psychology, sociology, science, politics, the whole bag. he's confident that he's done more homework than others, and i think that confidence is fairly warranted. tibetan monks spend half their day engaged in debate as a means of mental fitness. intellect isn't inherently a problem. in fact, i'd say it's far more likely for the unrefined intellect to be a problem. his brain wave manipulation was rather impressive. his constant delta patterns were inspiring. we may have to chat about him some time. =)

there really is no relation to any of the martial forms. there is a movement that's similar to the 'ward off' motion, minus the precision of body mechanics. but that's about it. there's nothing martial about it, so it's a totally different monster. i didn't like it at first. was really disappointed at how simple and "un-precise" the movements were. the only reason i gave it a second glance was because there was a movement in the form that made me feel sick. i figured something was going on there that i might want to examine a little bit. now i rather enjoy it. =)

being here has been an interesting experience for me. i had never been part of an active on-line forum before. but i think it's time for me to leave. just wanted to say goodbye. i know that i can be very critical (i almost became a professor and a lawyer. what can i say?), but i hope that most of you are able to see that my criticism is not just mean-spiritedness, but actual questioning and evaluating. i've enjoyed most of my encounters and engagements here, and i think i'm coming away from here with a few new and valuable insights. i need go deeper into the abyss of myself for a while, and hanging around here has become a habitual distraction from my personal work. no one to blame but myself for that one. i will remain in touch with Lin Sifu as he and i develop our respective centers in new york and california. i hope i brought more insight and rigor to the discussions than i did strife. you all take care. even you, mantra. to all of you authentic cultivators: i'll see you where you dream.

there's the problem, i believe. attachment and control. oftentimes wanting something to happen can prevent its achievement. relax. stop trying to 'make' it happen. 'allow' it to happen instead. increased heart rate sounds to me like you've gotten into the habit of forcing things. very yang-oriented. many people swear by this type of practice because the effects/experiences are more intense/sensual. but this type of approach is also why many qigong masters die young. make your in-breath the more active and your out-breath the more passive. rather than generating the manifestation of energy flow, let it arise naturally as a result of your own overabundance. much healthier, and the energy is more powerful when not colored/distorted by your effort. wu wei.

i'd lay off the vitamins if i were you. very hard on the kidneys, they are. and you piss something like 80% of them anyway. better to just eat and drink healthier. if you want to do a true water fast, then don't put anything in your body it has to process. give those organs a break. that's kind of the point. and even with a juice fast you want to avoid churning the digestive system. something solid like a vitamin will likely trigger the digestive process. that's a lot of energy that the body will be wasting. how you will feel depends on you; no one can answer that for you. i posted what it was like for me, but that's me.

not odd at all, i don't think. that's really great. and yet, not! you speak of the wonder of being and the passion of becoming. they seem at first to contradict, but they do not. the formless being has no propensity to come crying out that it is. the form of the becoming is a different matter. it lives and moves in an evolutionary universe. it has passion and the potential to change the world if properly guided. it's the same motivating force of all the great sages who have experience the full-blown satori, i think.

it makes sense to me.

damn, i never considered that there could be a problem transporting tea on an airplane. TEAS ON A PLANE! as for what i'm doing there: just having a good time and sharing some stuff. they have a meditation group on campus. (i can't imagine that it's very big, which is why i'm hoping some bums in the area might drop by.) i'll be giving a talk about meditation practice as a means of unplugging from cultural hypnosis. i'll probably touch on the accomplish-consume-acquire cycle that seems to typify over-achieving folk like those at harvard. i'll probably borrow heavily from the article i posted in the articles section. http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?showto...amp;#entry41856 i'll also talk about qi and share some qigong practices. i'll lead a seated 20-minute meditation, during which i'll emit some qi, and then i'll probably just hang out. i want some of that famous clam chowder. i'll probably share some poetry as well, since i'm positive that their poetry group is much larger. i'll probably drop some lyrics the night before, and then invite those people to my talk the following day. i want to leave it all pretty loose, and just respond to the occasion as it develops. but i definitely want some clam chowder.

i'm still getting ready for my visit to harvard at the end of the month (anyone who lives in the area should come hear me run my mouth and participate), but after that's over with i'll be setting my sights on NY. i'll be there. i hope to contribute to the overall presence of the group. and change everyone's life with some good tea.

aren't your 'energetic requirements' primarily determined by your mind?

sometimes i love you, cam.

spiritual adolescence can sometimes be a pain in the ass, and i feel like that's where i am. i DID feel Max's trasmission. i took it's gentleness for weakness, especially in light of what he didn't seem to know. it felt weaker than a reiki attunement. as the following week progressed i resolved myself to embracing exactly where i was. to just surrender and stop seeking. then i felt a sort of energetic breakthrough, with not-so-subtle stirrings, particularly in my spine, and it seemed to have a similar... signature, i guess, to what max had transmitted. i'm no stranger to breakthroughs, but i couldn't swear that max's transmission didn't have something to do with it. it made me confused and a little more frustrated about how things went at the seminar. i wanted to create a space to open up a dialog about it, but that was when i got shut down by mantra. i think you may be right. the person sitting next to me just might gain a great deal from what Max is teaching. that's the only reason i shared it with two of my guys. my greatest growth periods have been in times of greatest surrender. i totally believe surrender to be a far more important ingredient than technique. your response was well-put. thank you. i will be thinking about what you wrote for a while. i think i'm done looking for a teacher, though. at least for the time being. i still have so much left to do with what i already have. time to move on. you're right. thanks again.

1.) i'm not pretending anything. 2.) a weekend seminar is more than enough to know some things about a person. i don't know everything about him, but i know that i came away feeling gravely deceived for many, many reasons. after the free lecture i could have called it quits and gone home, but i felt that would have been premature. so not only did i stay, but i encouraged others to stay and give it a chance as well. it was only money, after all. money had NOTHING to do with it. if you've been paying attention, you'd know that. i didn't ask for a refund. and when i got it, i was still perfectly fine with paying for the private session that i had. 3.) nothing you've said here deals with anything that i've written about the matter up to this point. so what ax are you grinding? 4.) you made me think about whether my disdain for the whole thing was unfair, and i appreciated that because i valued your perspective (before this, anyway). when i began to openly rethink my attitude about max as a person, i was attacked. and after we called a truce, i swallowed everything else. i had already been swallowing most of the crap. i'm not swallowing anymore. (i can already hear the puns stirring in people's heads.) 5.) you and i obviously have different core values, and that's fine. but it doesn't make you righteous, any more than my position makes me righteous. i'm not a saint. not even close. the saints weren't even saints. but i have the right to speak my mind, and sometimes that's confrontation. 6.) your argument is kind of ridiculous. for one, it's not a matter of courage. and secondly, i didn't go there looking for a system to study; i went there seeking the advice of a master on a few specific issues, and that went nowhere. i told the man that i do healing work for a living, and as i was talking to him about a patient of mine he cut in to spend at least 10 of our 45 minutes explaining to me the 5 element theory of the body. WTF? what's that? like page 20 of EVERY qigong book out there? and that's not even the worst example; it's just the easiest one. and third, you wouldn't invest thousands unless you believed the odds were favorable. of course there's no guarantee. that's not at all the point. 7.) what difference is it to you, anyway? if you think i'm wrong, SHOW ME. i'm not incapable of changing my view. i'm sorry if i come across as too aggressive when i write, but this is how i write, nonetheless. i really thought about what you said before. and i think you were correct that one weekend can't tell the whole story; but it told me (and many others) enough to know we'd be better of looking elsewhere. if i missed my opportunity with a truly amazing master, then perhaps a truly amazing master isn't what i need, and i should refine my search. which i think i'm doing. like, for now at least, not searching anymore. 8.) in the spirit of your "snap-judgments" perspective, you're more than welcome to get to know me off the forum and then decide for yourself who you think i am and where you think i'm coming from. if you have the "courage," or whatever.

i'm really torn about this issue. on one hand i believe that there are some species that lack the capacity for evolution of consciousness; on the other hand, though, there are more species than just our own who DO have the capacity. plus, i'm quite sure there are some that express evolutionary traits in ways haven't yet recognized. i just have a hard time believing that inter-species or intra-species conflicts matter a whole lot to anything or anyone other than the species themselves. compassion is natural, i think. but at the same time i also think it's a value choice that's become institutionalized into a social force. a million galaxies, each with a billion stars, with planets orbiting almost every star... and we're only one of those planets. at the point that we realize spiritually that we ARE the universe, and not just actors in it, what does it *ultimately* matter what our species does? we could get off on eating illegitimate children and wiping our asses with freshly clubbed baby seals, and it wouldn't impact the greater balance of the forces of the universe. and yet, even if these things matter only to us, doesn't that make them significant, all the same? shouldn't we be responsible to our natural inclination towards compassion? only i don't think that natural inclination is the same for everyone. i think it evolves as we do. we are not all at the same evolutionary point, and so conflict arises, thereby necessitating a sort of 'social force' intervention for the sake of (at least) moderate stability. in the end, if there such a thing as righteous action, doesn't it ultimately come down to: to thine own self be true? not as in, "do what you want," but rather "live in harmony with your natural inclination, from moment to moment." thoughts?

hmm. is kunlun energy higher than that of the Buddha?

clearly i should have gone back and read your posts. my bad. you did put it out there. so that makes two of us, though you weren't in the 'fracas,' as it were. i did feel like i was the only one, and i did feel like i was standing up for truth. i got a number of private emails and messages from people who agreed with me but didn't want to catch any heat for it. so yeah, i felt like i shouldering a lot stuff on my own for a lot of people, and for the 'truth,' if that's the term you want to use. it wasn't important for me to be the only one; in fact, it sucked to feel that way. my hope was to inspire others to come forward. the discrepancies didn't take a genius to see. the point was that mantra framed his position as if he was responding to hundreds of critics, as if my criticism was just the final straw on a mountain of similar ones and he finally "lost his patience" for a moment, as apparently he did again in this thread. lol! but no, the world doesn't need our arguments with it. the world doesn't need us at all. not really the point, though. we determine values for ourselves, based on our information and experiences. and i believe my criticism to be of value to those who would otherwise follow blindly or be enticed enough to travel across the country when almost everything they're reading says that this guy could be the real deal. could i be wrong? sure. but obviously i don't think that's likely.

really? THIS is your response?

lol!

you did share your experience, and i forgot about that. you reminded me that max claimed to be physically immortal at the free lecture. still, you didn't really level a criticism, so i wouldn't include you as being 'in the fray' so to speak). you said it wasn't for you. in fact, your post now is about why NOT to criticize, in a sense. so i still wouldn't say that you fit what i'm talking about. your point about attacking everyone who says an untrue thing sort of misses the mark. i mean, it's a nice sentiment, but there are degrees as well as contexts. again, believe what you will.

you make a good point, and i think it needed to be stated. is it possible? yes. but i don't find it probable in this case. master moy was, in fact, a master of taiji quan. and he met people where they were. this is a different scenario. just look at some of the claims that have been made. there's just no comparison. direct quotes from mantra's earlier posts: "One-on-one he can answer specific questions in a private setting. He will scan you to see your potential, your lineage and your current state of health. From there he will tell you or give you what you need to achieve your goal." "When you get to a certain level of mastery it becomes quite simple to recognize the key elements in other systems and thus understand the system. When you have a strong past incarnation with Taoism, Mongolian Shamanism, Tibetan Buddhism, the Egyptian Priesthood, and Native American Medicine like Max, it is easier to just recall the information. I say this not to insult your intelligence, it is just the truth." "Also, the difference between Max and the YouTube guy is that Max is an excellent martial arts technician. He knows when to apply the subtle energies and when to simply smack the hell out of you." " He can teach many different styles of kung fu and is quite an accomplished martial artist." "The answer is yes, it can be applied to people who are not open. The price for doing so is that their nervous system can become severely damaged." the 2nd one simply can't be verified, but is certainly sensational. the rest are patently false. it's deceit. and it's completely unnecessary because the technique being offered speaks for itself! people aren't attending in order to learn martial arts, and then, once they're there, discovering something vastly more profound as with the founder of your school. people are going with the belief that bogus claims are true (or at least might be), and once they get there, they use the technique and become blissed out. thereby proving the validity of... what? everything sounds good when you're tripped out on Kunlun. cult leaders used a similar tactic with acid in the 70's. i know that's a harsh association, but i don't think enough people have considered the parallels. i have students that come to wanting the sensational all the time. i don't necessarily turn them away because of it, but i certainly don't encourage the mindset, and i don't use deceit. one of those students joined this forum a little over a month ago. just look for yourself. believe what you will.

doing the whole line-by-line refutation thing would be a waste of both time and energy. i don't want to get sucked into an adversarial posture, though i still want my criticisms to be considered. what you described in the spirit of serving others with a gift is NOT a contradiction, and i would never take issue with that. i do my best to live that and to teach that every day. but when these things become the 'main attraction' it's a different matter. and that's how these things have been used. maybe there are things that you haven't shown (none of us can evaluate the truth of that claim), but that doesn't change my point: your approach is encouraging attachment to phenomenon! a week or so ago i taught the kunlun 1 method to 2 of my students (uh oh, hundun's hijacking the system!). i told them all about my experience at the seminar and my criticisms and the whole nine. and they both know that i don't practice it. but i didn't want my attitude to keep them from exploring something that could potentially benefit them. one of them is really taking a liking to it. that's fine by me. if he benefits from the practice then i'm happy and i'm grateful that you and yours have chosen to share this with the world. and should he decide at some point to attend a seminar, i'll support him the same way everyone supported me. but i still feel like your approach is geared more towards getting people in the door who are dabblers or who want to be like Dragon Ball Z than people who are genuine cultivators and spiritual aspirants. it's not how one acts so much as where one acts from that i respond to. enlightenment isn't holding its flag up on the surface. it's the root. i've seen the root many times in drastically different guises. maybe i just missed it. maybe you're right. but i can't just take your word for it. you're too invested. too attached. i didn't want to cause any complications for the man by outing him, but Kan was the one i was referring to when i said one of Max's students recognized and commented on my energy level in a manner that Max himself seemed incapable of doing, even in our private session. and Kan happens to also be a qigong master apart from any training he later did with Max. but his energy didn't really speak to me, either. i see and listen with more than my eyes and ears, and i don't just go with "i have a feeling," either. "one moment with one individual (out of hundreds)" makes it sound as if you've been put through the ringer here and taken it all in stride. i'm the *only one * who actually went to a seminar and openly leveled a criticism at it. i'm not one of many. i'm one. and maybe the uniqueness of my position was a bigger threat to the image, and maybe THAT'S why you reacted the way you did. and you don't belong to any "warrior clan." Max isn't even a martial artist. he said so himself (or was he just being his 'trickster' self when he said that). that's the kind of sketchy shit that gets thrown around all over the place and undercuts the true value of what you guys are sharing. you don't have to admit fault. i don't expect you to at this point. even your agreement with trunk has dodges all over the place. whatevs. you have your followers. you have your leader. i follow myself. as Max claims is the only true way.