altiora

Wasn't as hard as I thought to find my notes. I should note the zhineng sounds are done in conjunction with a qigong movement sequence that makes up Level 3 of that qigong system. The sounds are listed in the order they are activated; and the sequence is jing - qi - shen (and the emotion to feel when doing them): Heart: xing - xin - xiang (joy) Kidney: ei - yu -ying (fear) (the "ei" is quite percussive, sort of like a cough; but I've seen other Zhineng teachers who intone it softer) Spleen: gang - fu - zhong (pensive) Liver: tu-ju-ling (anger) Lung: sang-si-song (sadness) (the "si" can be done sort of like an sharp inhale through the nose, but I prefer the snake like hissing) There is not triple burner sound. You can make these sounds orally (beginner level); mentally (medium level) or silently (high level). My teacher told me that it takes many years practice to get past the oral level, because your concentration and senstivity levels need to be sufficient that you can sense the organs in other ways than just physically.

They are very very good. They're usually one of the first qigong practices people are introduced to, and sadly (myself included) quick leave them to find new and exciting and exotic practices. And then (me included as well) you return to them and realise how powerful they really are despite their simplicity. There's a wonderful review of the different healing sounds at http://baharna.com/chant/six_healing.htm Has anyone tried/compared the different versions? Any preferences? I find Hua Ching Ni's versions to be the most effective of the lot. Which is kind of ironic since he says they should not be vocalised. In Xhineng qigong, they have three different sounds for each organ -- one for jing, qi and shen. I'll try to find my notes for these and post them up. I've seen similar ones in Jerry A Johnson's book for sounds for cancer treatment. I do note that teachers always stress the importance of ensuring that you do them all in one sitting, and not to focus on one organ (unless you've been prescribed treatment by qigong healer) because they are very stimulating and so can quickly unbalance things if you're not too careful.

With respect to the crystal ball, this is just a variant of the flame meditation; in the Indian system it's called Trataka meditation: http://www.indiadivine.org/articles/93/1/Trataka-Meditation-Meditation-on-a-Flame/Page1.html Like all meditations, you need to start at a few minutes and gradually build your endurance; it's purpose is to still the mind, build mental concentration and, as well, it is meant to be very good for the eyes by strengthening the muscles and purifying them. Despite being admonished regularly by my teacher, I haven't tried this meditation and I'm feeling very guilty since it is clearly a meditation that is a crucial preliminary practice. Dr Stephen Chang in his two books has instructions on the flame meditation from a Taoist/TCM perspective (see the Complete System of Self Healing: Internal Exercises). There is nothing magic about the choice of a crystal ball -- it's just an object that lacks any features that could distract your mind. (It has nothing to do "scrying", divination, John Dee etc as has been bizarrely suggested here) My teacher states that any small object can be used. He recommends something that can be worn as a necklace -- like a crystal or glass bead -- because the concentrating on it directs qi into the object, and so it can also serve as a energy pendant. With respect to relying of Charles Luk, I tried to use his book from a guide and failed miserably. The instructions are not clear. I'm not really sure that Charles Luk was that well-versed in the actual practice of internal alchemy. He was versed in Buddhist meditations, which I understand were his main life practice. If you're interested in internal alchemy, I'd recommend going to some classes by Eva Wong or someone who has been initiated by a Daoist master/teacher. The reason is that the texts are deliberately obscure and there is much that is left unwritten.

Case in point of what I was criticising. Threads are littered with your pictures. A picture is worth a thousands words, but it's a poor substitute for a cogent argument.

At the risk of being controversial, I suggest it may reflect the changes in membership demographics. When I first joined it was almost entirely respectful discussion on qigong, meditation, Taoism and buddhism by people who actually practice and study those topics. Then the Kunlun craze came along, and the converted and heathen went at one another hammer and tongs, and from then on the tone of this place has been lowered. Now there are too many people posting for its own sake; too many alpha male type qigong/martial artist "sifu" and "masters" defending their turf and peddling their dubious DVDs and "learning"; and too many new agers and their kindred Da Vinci Code reading conspiracy buffs for whom logical thinking is not a strong point. Maybe I'm a bit cranky. But the internet seems to be dragged down by people who think "participation" is the most important thing. Perhaps it would be good if people were to consider what the purpose of this site is, and to ask whether their postings advance those purposes.

How did you weigh that?

It's an interesting explanation for how it works -- seems somewhat implausible to me though. I'm currently practising a standing posture similar to it: I was taught it by Chris Lee Matsuo who considers it the earliest form of qigong. Here's the instructions: stand with your feet shoulder width apart, heels turned in slightly, raise arms straight above your head, palms facing forward; raise up on your toes so your heels leave the ground; bend knees slightly and sit into the heels. Works like a treat to get the qi coming in and circulating; it has a wonderful feeling of uniting heaven and earth (indeed that's the exact point); and the open solar plexus allows for some serious surrendering and abdominal breathing. The goal is to stand for up to an hour for 5 days in order to open up the connection between the heart and arms. I'm up to 30 minutes. It takes time to get use to but the qi flow it stimulates is incredible.

Could I also suggest that a good start of freeing people from this hatred would be to examine the role in the Christian church in a bit more of an impartial way? i.e., to see that it has contributed to and enriched our culture, and that it has sustained, and continues to sustain, people spiritually. Perhaps also see that in its first centuries of existence Christianity converted peoples by peaceful means; that the reason people converted was because of dissatisfaction with paganism ; and that pagans enjoyed torturing and murdering christians in that era. And might I suggest that some people take their rosy tinted specs off and go see how institutionalized religion in eastern societies has also committed atrocities and support oppression too. I had the prejudice towards Christianity too. Being of solid Anglican stock, I was prejudiced against 'the church of Rome". But then I started reading the great Christian mystics to see they have a great deal to offer. It also made me understand why ancestors found solace in the church, and to realise that those ancestors weren't uneducated fools that we moderns so often think they were. So to put things another way: yes the church has committed wrong. Yes children in its care have been abused, which has been covered up, and that is wrong. But do we then dwell on that continually and forget about the millions of children who have and do benefit from its care and who have not been abused? Do we forget it is the church that provides social services that governments can't or won't? Do we forget those clergy and laity that have tirelessly devoted their lives to others and did not abuse anyone? Do we need to continually mention the Inquisition etc, and forget that the church protected and inspired many many great thinkers? And should the church be held accountable for what happened centuries ago, when the perpetrators are now long dead, and were doing what was regarded as OK at the time? I could go on and on. But my point can be summarized as follows: the path to spiritual development is to continually strive for a fuller measure of the truth. This means we must put aside our prejudices, and stop fixating on part of the picture, and try to start seeing the full picture. To do this we need knowledge and, to attain that, we need compassion.

I think you should do some research: that isn't Pan, they're both Moses with the Tablets with the Commandments. The "horns" are due to a literal translation of the Vulgate tof Exodus 34:29-35, which speak of Moses' having "horns". Horns were symbolic of authority in ancient Near Eastern culture. However, in both Latin and Hebrew the word for horns can also refer to rays of light. Sheesh. Is there such a need to attack the Church that we need to not bother about facts?!

People should read the newspaper article properly. It doesn't say that the Pope criticised the film -- it says The Vatican newspaper and radio station are critical. And then it goes on to detail other peoples' criticism. While I'm not a Papist and don't agree with the Vatican's views on contraception, I think people should show respect for the head of other peoples' faith. And perhaps instead of the puerile pictures posted up here, people should debate the idea about nature worship and why the Vatican might disagree with that. And do so without resorting to "they burnt people" etc. Actually I tend to agree that one has to be very cautious about elevating nature to having some sort of divine status. While I believe nature is divine made and shares in aspects of divinity but, as in the case of humans, there are many features of nature that are not "divine" and worthy of emulation (e.g.., that the strong kill and consume the weak). Trite as it may seem, it is a matter of balance: nature can remind us what is true and beautiful in this world; but we humans have moral faculties and we must use these to ensure that our baser "natural" urges are controlled in the interests of future generations and to help one another when nature shows its nastier side. To me the Na'vi were more "human" and the humans more "nature": the Na'vi used their moral faculties to realise the interconnectedness of nature and to respect it; by contrast the humans were unconstrained by their moral faculties and carried out the baser natural instinct to consume and destroy. .

Got any proof for this asserted generalisation? You might also like to consider that those of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic beliefs also believe that life is a one shot deal too. Does anyone else find it deeply funny that these days atheists (like Dawkins et al) seem to proselytize with as much evangelical fervor of saving souls as your Mormon or Seventh Day Adventist missionaries do? But more to the point: I recall Padmsambhava stated that one needed a mind as fine as sand grains to deal with karma effectively.

There are only three levels in the traditional Japanese and Takata (traditional western) schools. This is a matter of historical fact: look up the website for the International House of Reiki, Sydney for further information. If any one is saying there are more, then it's usually some western invention made to make more money from the lure of "secrets". I should say that in some Takata school teachers have "4" levels -- some of them divide the 3 level into two: one for people who wish to teach (which is the full course and is usually because it requires supervision by a teacher for a period) and one for people who don't wish to teach but just wish to learn for their personal development. I've done all three levels in the traditional Japanese and Takata schools, so happy to answer any further questions.

Could you please cite the shastra or samhita (i.e. scriptural support) that states this relationship between mantras and planets? I can't see it written in the Rg veda, upanisads or puranas myself. There are specific planetary mantras, but these are later era tantric innovations. But, of course, I am open to correction. As far as I understand, one can recite any of the traditional mantram invoking the deities quite safely. They have nothing to do with anything material. You don't need "astrologers", those high priests of superstition, to control you on this. Indian peoples have recited mantras for many thousands of years, and continue to do so, to attract a particular quality of divine energy into their lives. The 40 day mantra discipline is an accepted practice by everyday Indian people. If you access any reputable Indian online bookshop, you will find many books (some better than others) with various mantras and their uses. What benefits you receive from the jap depend on Divine Grace. In this respect, it should be noted that rarely do Indians recite the mantra by itself: it is done in conjunction with regular worship and devotion, and it is this worship and devotion that empowers the mantra jap. What will cause problems with mantra is where they are used by deluded spiritual materialists seeking siddhi, or by the spiritually promiscuous who hop from one discipline or mantra to another. This is not because the mantra will or could harm them, but rather because they are wasting their time or feeding their avaricious ego or both. But this problem is not unique to mantra jap. Having said that, I do believe that if you wish to make mantra jap your main discipline, then you should seek a properly qualified teacher. Again, this is to stop yourself from wasting your precious time.

Good, thoughtful post. Mantra jap (repetition) has increasingly taken over as the main linking spiritual practice for me. There are two reasons: it is so easy to do it and fit it into your day (recommend having a wrist mala), and it is a very nice way of reminding me that spiritual practice must involve the entire life. I've used mantra jap to tame the monkey mind by putting all those spare moments on the bus, walking etc to good use. My mantra is Om Namah Shivaay. I get much the same energetic stimulation from mantra jap as I get from a good session of qigong. Now with respect to what exactly mantra do: they work on many levels and so any attempt to describe what they do will inevitably fall short. They can be used as a mindfulness tool to focus the mind. But in most non-Theravadin schools, mantra is more than that: it can be prayer invoking the support of various spiritual beings, and in other cases manipulation of energy (both within and outside the body). The same is true (very broadly stated) in Hinduism where the science of sound (Nada brahma) has been refined to an extraordinary degree and for various different purposes. The qigong method I practice uses Om Mani Padme Hung both as a prayer to the Buddhas, and also a way of getting energy circulating throughout the body. I'd recommend you read Russill Paul's work "The Yoga of Sound" and his other works. http://www.russillpaul.com/yogaofsound.html Paul explores the different types of mantra in the Indian tradition. He has several recordings too. However, Paul's pronunciation of Sanskrit seems to me to be a bit questionable, for instance, he seems to confuse Hindi pronunciation for Sanskrit pronunciation. Thomas Ashley Farrand is another you could consider, but the jury is out on him. Traditionally mantra needs to be imparted from guru to teacher. In the Hindu tradition this is because you need the right mantra to suit your constitution and goals, because correct pronunciation is crucial and as it has the benefit of tapping into the lineage energy. Having said that, I have been told that if one gets most of the pronunciation correct and recites with the right intent, you will derive some benefit from the mantra. Personally, I think the mantra Om Ah Hung is very effective as a basic mantra. It is used in quite a few Buddhist-derived qigong practices, and I've seen several explanations of what this mantra does. The consensus seems to be that they are the primordial sounds. It always gets my body buzzing away. It is also used throughout Tibetan Buddhism. Ideally you should have a new mala (108 beads) for every mantra; only do one mantra at a time; and aim for a minimum of 40 days reciting (at least) one round of the mala daily. Purely mental repetition is said to be the best; mental repetition but with moving lips the next best; and vocal repetition the least effective. Having said that, what is the most effective method depends on your make-up. I've always found mental with lips moving the best since I can comfortably go on for ages, while the other two methods are too much of a struggle.

Sincerely hope I'm not breaking any rules, apologies in advance if I am. Just to let people know I selling my copies of the following: "Shaolin Qi Gong Yi Zhi Chan: instruction manual", written by Qi Gong Grand Master Jin-Fa Zhang (CD-Rom: contains instruction manual in English and Chinese, photos of postures, and mantra mp 3) "Shaolin Chan Mi Gong - Beginner 1" written by Qi Gong Grand Master Jin-Fa Zhang (CD-Rom: contains instruction manual in English and Chinese, photos of postures, and mantra mp 3) "Shaolin Chan Mi Gong -- Beginner 2" written by Qi Gong Grand Master Jin-Fa Zhang (CD-Rom: contains instruction manual in English and Chinese, photos of postures, and mantra mp 3). The three CD-Roms cost over $450 USD new. The first CD-Rom contains the arhat stands and finger bending methods -- these build qi very efficiently. The last two contain rare Tibetan meditations with which to distribute your qi and develop your latent potentials. More info: http://shaolinchankung.tripod.com/shanghaiqigong/index.html Message me if you'd like to make me an offer for them. It's a very well structured course of rare teachings.

There is plenty of writings on western mysticism if one gets over the prejudice that people often display towards anything "Christian". One doesn't have to rely on circus masters (ala Bardon) or dubious historiography (Hermeticism generally) to be a mystic. Indeed, I'd say that people who claim supernatural experiences cannot by definition be "mystics". Mysticism involves a completely naked view of the world, not a retreat from it into personal fantasy. That aside, Meister Eckhart, The Cloud of the Unknowing and Julian of Norwich are my personal favourites. (There are many other besides). Meister Eckhart is up there with the best Zen philosophers with his ideas about God being "pregnant with nothingness"; the Cloud of Unknowing contains practical instruction on how the pierce the Cloud of Unknowing with arrows of love; and Julian of Norwich talks Christ the Mother and her views on the Trinity (on holding something no bigger than a hazelnut Julian said: "In this little thing, I saw three properties. The first is that God made it. The second is that God loves it. The third is that God keeps it." And who can forget St Francis' Prayer (which along with his Canticle to Brother Sun and Sister Moon) is pure mysticism distilled into poetic metre: LORD, make us instruments of Your peace. Where there is hatred, let us sow love; Where there is injury, pardon; Where there is discord, union; Where there is doubt, faith; Where there is despair, hope; Where there is darkness, light; Where there is sadness, joy. O Divine Master, grant that we may not seek to much to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen If you seek to live out that prayer all the days of your life, then you truly are a mystic. Anyway enough said. Merry Xmas all.

Hmmmm...well by chance I googled "spontaneous qigong" and one of the results was: http://linwebsite.com/forum/viewtopic.php?...307a88940f84123 I've never heard of "Tea House 2.0" before or this Liu I-Ming who posted the topic. The discussion by Liu I-Ming makes some very concerning reading. It appears to be clearly sincere. I think we can guess the identity of "Second Vignettee: Practice Y". It is unfortunate the the moderators of that forum shut the topic down. While I can understand they wished to avoid chaos, I do think that the nature of the claims and the sincerity and ostensible authority that they were made, it would have been ideal to have obtained a lengthy, on topic, response from a suitably qualified practitioner who disagreed with the claims so that we can hear both sides of the story. It would have also have been good to have asked Liu I-Ming for his or her credentials. That said the discussion sounds rather concerning. Would be interested if anyone can provide a qualified response/rebuttal.

My apologies for (it seems) posting a link that was already discussed elsewhere. Had done a search on here before doing so, but didn't locate anything suggesting it had. Unsurprising given the pages upon pages of posts that the kunlun topic seems to attract. There are two issues in my view raised by the Liu I-Ming. The first issue is the safety of spontaneous practices. This is quite separate and distinct from the kunlun practice -- there are several other schools of spontaneous qigong I am aware of and I've practiced two of them. In this respect the concerns raised -- about the practices safety -- do warrant serious consideration and discussion. By this I mean whether there are risks tone's health from these practices (leaving aside spirit possession for the moment). Liu I-Ming's comments echo a high level qigong master I studied under, who considered that the risk of psychological and physiological harm was too great and hence discouraged spontaneous qigong. I have read other teachers who have expressed the same view. So I do think it is worth consideration. And I don't think it's to be flicked off by (as so often with the ever-so cyncial westerners) by "poisoning the well" by alleging that they just want to keep power and money to themselves. The second issue is the "implanting" (for want of a better word) by these two particular practices. I can't even begin to comment on the veracity of the particular allegations made. Although I can say I've turned down offers of "transmissions" simply on account of not knowing the person concerned enough. I do sometimes worry about these westerners who think they have some "right" to spiritual transmission. As I understood it transmissions were given to the closest students -- after both the student and the teacher had built up sufficient trust with each other.

Again you're welcome. Please be wary there is a lot in Orthodox Christianity that is a "slap in the face" to the modern liberal mentality of "anything goes". It is very strict about what we must do in our lives, the moral codes we must adhere to. Of course that doesn't mean that it requires you to be a perfect saint, but that you be aware of your failings (dare I use the word 'sins') and that you be humble and try your hardest to rectify them. For me my passage to the Orthodox Church was no easy ride. There were many things it asked of me that really caused much soul searching, and still do and where I still fall short of what is required. But I'm forced to acknowledge that and actively try to change things. But that's OK: Orthodoxy won't condemn you if you do have that intention to change and do sincerely try. We are all fall short of the idea (whether you're an Orthodox Archbishop or a layperson) and therefore we must be compassionate and help and support each other ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"). Orthodoxy is no different in the moral demands it places on its adherents than many Buddhists/Hindu/Taoist sects, which have similarly very high standards of moral conduct. Often I've found westerners seem to say they don't like the moral control of Christianity; and seem to think Buddhism is a nice easy spirituality that allows you to do what you want but save your soul with a bit of meditation. For instance, a friend was reading "The Dzogchen Primer" and was saying how annoyed that it had nothing "practical" but spent pages upon pages about morality, karma etc etc. Yet from what I've read, the Buddhist masters of Tibet wouldn't let a student anywhere near advanced teachings unless he or she had completely reformed his or her moral being. this is because they understand that moral failings are a distraction that prevent students from seeing the truth. I fear I've said too much, so will give you good people a break. But a final recommendation would be "Art of Prayer: an orthodox anthology" - this has some excellent writings of the Orthodox meditative-prayer.

Would think that is based on the faith that one's experiences justify that belief, or faith that one has the capabilities to reach valid beliefs on account of those experiences No I'm not toying with you, well not without reason! A philosopher (can't remember his name) pointed out that modern humans are prone to think that everything they do is based on empirical observation/proof and that we don't truly realise how "faith" (in the sense of an expectation or hope that isn't necessarily provable at that point of time on which we rely on it) governs our lives.

You're welcome. But I'm nothing but a tongue-tied novice when it comes to some Orthodox theologians and the sheer beauty of their vision. Be wary that Orthodoxy has its own Fundies: the sort that believe that anything written after the 4 th century AD is suspect and degraded, if not Satanic. The fundametalist menatlity is a blight to all religions -- look at what death and carnage so called vegetarian "Hindus" and "Buddhists" extremists in Indian and Sri Lanka cause to the Muslim and Christian minorities. Be wary also that Orthodoxy has been snuffed out of the Western culture -- it's only now establishing itself here with the increasing numbers of new converts and the established communities integrating into their countries. A lot of Orthodoxy reflects the particular country to which it is originally affiliated e.g. Russia, Greece etc so often reflects the culture with all its baggage. This can be a culture shock to westerners and you can find yourself hearing some rather interesting "views" about the world. But as I always say, you accept my warts and I'll accept yours. I'd recommend an Englishman Kallistos Ware's book "The Orthodox Way" and "Philokalia: the Bible of Orthodox Spirituality" by Anthony Coniaris as the best introductions around. They discuss Orthodoxy in a way approachable, but still challenging, to westerners. You're right: ultimately it is about faith. At one stage we reach the limits of our rational mind and must make a leap of faith. I've always been amazed at some western Buddhist adherents will say "how ridiculous" Christianity is with its Resurrection, Virgin Birth etc, yet see no problem accepting every word of an equally "colourful" Buddhist scripture as absolute and literal truth. At the end of the day it's all faith. If that's what you want to believe that's fine. I don't necessarily agree but I won't denigrate you for it. One thing I've never got clear about Buddhism is whether Lord Buddha saw a role for a creator Deity in the form that the Judaeo-Christian would recognise. I've received two answers when I've asked teachers of this tradition: the first, Buddha didn't say one way or another, as it wasn't important to his teachings and, further, what point is there concerning oneself with such things when you're not happy here and now; and second, no he didn't, Mind is everything. Now the Japanese Pure Land school then saw an apparent flaw: if the whole purpose is to escape the fetters of ego, isn't attempting to attain enlightnment inherently contradictory with this. And if so, don't we then require a Higher Power to overcome the strictures of the Self-Power. As someone pointed out, the Japanese Pure Land school came extraordinary close to Martin Luther's teachings of Justification by Faith alone. Researched this matter myself but gave up because there was so little material out there -- so as you can see these musings are very "beginner's mind" stuff.

NT Greek actually.

Yes I suppose that last sentence sounded a little contradictory to what I had said earlier: I simply meant that while I'm happy to read from East and West, I have come to understand that my cultural ties mean that I'm not always going to be able to fully understand the Eastern teachings. That reflects linguistic and cultural differences which mean I can't simply go to the library and (eg) take out the Daoist Canon and read it cover to cover. I'm reliant on what other people tell me what the Daoist Canon says. By contrast, I'm able to read and understand (to a greater or lesser extent) the western teachings.