Apech

Some nice metaphors in that ... at least I hope the face punching was metaphorical. But shovelling a hollow mountain is nice.

I don't think you can describe it as a 'step-wise march' - quote from your link:

There are two alchemical traditions that I am aware of, the western one and the Daoist one. The word alchemy itself is usually thought to be derived for the Arabic al-chemy, which means 'of Egypt' since the old name for Egypt was Kham or Khemet, meaning the Black Land. There are alternative derivations including a Chinese one, but it is certainly true that western Alchemy began with Arabic scholars studying an interpreting Ancient Egyptian inscriptions and so on. The Daoist term is Dan which means ‘pill or elixir’ - and there were two forms Wei Dan (External Alchemy) and Nei Dan (Internal Alchemy) - the latter using the terminology of the external alchemy to apply to inner energy processes (jung, qi and shen and so on). Because of the language used it was natural for western scholars to assign the term alchemy to Wei Dan and Nei Dan especially as the goal of making the ‘pill or elixir’ was very suggestive of the ‘philosophers stone and elixir of immortality’ used in western alchemical schools. This transfer of terms from outer alchemy to internal alchemy is the traditional historical narrative - but I would suggest that this is a misreading. I think in more ancient times, in both Ancient China and Ancient Egypt the distinction between outer substances and spiritual energies and so on, didn’t exist. But at some time people began to make these distinctions which led to the idea that there was outer alchemy and inner alchemy - rather than just alchemy itself. So is alchemy a generic term for ‘energy stuff’? - well good choice of words (i.e. stuff) but I think no. There is a certain view of the the world and of the human being (especially the body) needed for alchemy. Nei Dan is a well defined process - although there are different schools of course - takes a particular view about the human makeup, how energy works and what to do with it (i.e. making the pill and so on) if you are not doing that then I don’t see how you could say you are doing Nei Dan (which is what most of us mean by alchemy). Of course you might work with the Dan Tiens, feel qi and so on - so if you are going to be very, very broad about what Nei Dan is then at a pinch you might claim to be doing it I suppose - but you would be doing no more than laying the foundations i.e. the stage before stage 1 . Western Alchemy is similarly specific and is one branch of Hermetic Science (the others being Astrology and Theurgy) - it relies on a world view based on elements, planetary forces and the combination, distillation, sublimation and transformation of substances in a psycho/spiritual process. Again you might say, well I’ve done some energy work with elementals and so on … but unless you have embarked on the ‘Great Work’ then you can hardly say you are an alchemist. But you could say that you have an alchemical approach perhaps. I don’t want to be prescriptive - cos this is DaoBums - but I do think to claim this word some certain basics have to be in place. I see the word ‘tantra’ has been tossed into the frame also - that also definitely does not mean ‘energy stuff’ - but perhaps it's going to get very confusing to address both at once. Anyway my thoughts.

Hi everyone, I was doing some looking at the role of the lungs and breathing in relation to the rest of the body. I had an insight that the lungs were affecting endocrine secretions in the rest of the body. So I looked it up on google: I thought this was interesting given the focus on breath in various yogas and also qi gong/nei gong and nei dan. Anyway posting it for general info.

With some vacuums there's a bag you can remove to dispose of the dust - otherwise with a bagless model simply remove the cyclone container and empty to contents into a black plastic sack. Dispose of the contents responsibly to preserve the environment. This bit I actually agree with.

I just wanted to raise the topic of the 3 Turnings of the Wheel of Dharma - I have seen a few people on here interpret these as kind of shifts in consciousness or levels and this suggests some kind of change which affects large numbers of people at the same time. I think this is completely the wrong way to look at it. And scholarship backs me up - as do traditional Buddhist teachings. The idea of a historical narrative based on progressively evolving consciousness is a very western one. Buddhists on the other hand would say that the Buddha taught all three approaches (as part of the 84,000 collections of dharmas) and that all that changed was their popularity which in turn is dependent on the kinds of obstacles and difficulties people are experiencing. So the dharma being like medicine comes in a variety of pills and depending on the condition of the patients those 'pills' become more or less appropriate. This suggests that all three expressions of Buddhism - hinayana, mahayana and vajrayana - were always present - and that the changes that occurred were gradual and not schismatic. In support of this idea is the academic research:

I would use 'Three Disciplines' to refer to wisdom or understanding, morality and meditation - which as far as I know is common to all schools of Buddhism. In other words study to understand the View, practice the precepts and mind training, and meditate.

Zen of course is the same word as Jana (Pali), Ch'an (Chinese) and Zen in Japan all from Sanskrit Dhyana meaning meditative absorption - and therefore a yogacara or citta-mattra school of Buddhism, because it relies primarily on the nature of Mind and buddha-nature. It was the yogacara who coined the 3 Turnings of the Wheel in order to attribute their tradition and all others back to the Buddha himself.

OK.

Norbu describes it very well - (as you would expect) that both are teachings of the Buddha for people of different capacities - in other words for different audiences. At about 25 mins in or so.

It might be helpful at this point to clarify the nature of the Third Turning of the Wheel - and appropriately including a quote from a Dzogchen teacher: It is true that each Turning had a different emphasis eg. (1) non-self, (2) emptiness, (3) buddha-nature - and that you can further break down different schools within each Turning which give their own explanations. However - they all point to the nature of the Buddha's awakening - and as Mr. Anderson says 'In the third turning, we find a presentation of the first turning that is in accord with the second turning' - they are all consistent with each other in this respect.

Here by the way is the part immediately following your quote from Supreme Source on the life of Garab Dorje, which indicates he was part of the Mahayana and so part of the third turning (i.e. stress buddha-nature).

This makes no difference to what I am saying. Garab Dorje may have been born after the paranirvana of the Buddha but he was a Buddhist teacher from Uddinaya (probably Swat Valley) where also Padhmasmbhava hailed from - there are very many Buddhist masters both Indian and Tibetan in the lineage of Mahayana (and Tantrayana) ... so? Most of them are given mythic origins and histories ... so? Many, many created new sadhanas and so on by interaction with sambhogakaya deities ... all part of the third turning of the wheel (or the fourth if you care to enumerate it differently). I am sure historians and academics do not understand transmission ... but some of the quotes I gave are from Buddhist practitioners including the Dalai Lama is it your position that they don't either?

I'm not sure why you are focussing on Dzogchen as this is (as far as Buddhism is concerned) a sub-set of Nyingmapa teachings and thus generally speaking a Mahayana teaching. However the Dalai Lama himself who is a scholar of Buddhism has shown a link for Dzogchen back through Madhyamaka traditions to sutra - here is a brief summary of that position: The text then goes on to say: My point above is that western scholars have now, or are beginning to realise that the interpretation of the historical narrative of the development of say Mahayana, is not a split or schism but a reemphasis of something that was already there - and thus more closely accords with Buddhism's own account that all three turnings of the wheel are the exposition of the Buddha's original teachings and arise because the 'audience' of people living in different social conditions and cultures and with different personal karmic tendencies had changed. So that teachings which were formally esoteric became popularised in order to benefit sentient beings. And that this happened gradually and did not comprise some kind of shift or change in the world or level of consciousness of beings and so on.

Different to different people. The dharma changes according to its audience and not in itself. As I said before - the whole point of calling them turnings of the wheel is to identify the teachings as teachings of the Buddha. And definitely he would have taught something equivalent to Dzogchen. The turnings of the wheel are not some kind rejigging of minds, changes in the levels or breadth of consciousness or whatever words you may wish to choose.

When did I say anything like that Jeff? I've been quite clear in what I said and it actually accords with both dharma teachings and the current academic understanding. Just to recap. The Mahayana did not appear as a new revelation but was there from the beginning but practiced by a minority of monks (even though in the same sangha as those practicing Hinayana). Later it became more popular because its approach was found to benefit beings and in North India became the predominant type of Buddhist practice. Even though there were teachers who clarified this view such as Nagarjuna it was not a new revelation. The third turning of the wheel was similarly understood to have been taught by the Buddha but reserved for a select group of students and transmitted on gaining popularity in such schools as Yogacara. So from the Buddhist point of view - where they speak of the three turning of the wheel - the whole point is that they are teachings of the Buddha - part of a variety of ways in which he communicated and taught his awakening to his followers.

The comparison between New and Old Testament is false. There is no comparable new teacher or teachings in Dharma. This where we diverge. The application of this kind of analysis from Judeo-Christian thought is why the understanding of the dharma in the west is weakened.

From Op "Historian Heinrich Dumoulin wrote that "Traces of Mahayana teachings appear already in the oldest Buddhist scriptures. Contemporary scholarship is inclined to view the transition of Mahayana as a gradual process hardly noticed by people at the time." [Dumoulin, Zen Buddhism: A History, Vol. 1, India and China (Macmillan, 1994), p. 28]"

Turning the wheel of Dharma, is a natural process of the formation of the dharmakaya. It is the manifest embodiment of helping all sentient beings. Turning the wheel of the dharma means teaching Buddhism

yes, I know that's what you think. I am suggesting that what you are referring to is something else - and is actually non-dharmic.

The turnings of the wheel are Hinyana, Mahayana, Vajrayana - you might consider Dzogchen and Mahamudra as a kind of fourth way (some do) but it is still the same process. Such that the original teaching approaches of the Buddha co-exist since he taught - but the emphasis changes over time (for some anyway) - this is the point of the OP in terms of gradual change which occurs to address people's 'sicknesses'. I'm not saying there are no new sutras or terma texts and so on - they occur - but they are the uncovering or bringing to the foreground something that already exists - they are not some kind of evolution of consciousness etc. Chinese monks who visited India found Hinayana and Mahayana practiced side by side in the same communities of monks. All that happened is that a minority approach slowly grew to become the majority approach.

I don't see how that makes any difference. The things you are quoting are about the spread of a certain school of Buddhism into Tibet in 8th - 11th centuries. This is not a turning of the wheel.

I don't think I am - I assume the 'he' in Norbu's quote is Shakyamuni Buddha.