doc benway

Beware of taking such descriptions too literally. Trying to understand meditation landmarks and experiences through the descriptions of another is worse than worthless. The only way for there to be benefit is to practice a technique and share your own experience with a guide who has been there. You will then be given progressively more demanding exercises to practice. Having an expectation or goal is more of a distraction than a help.

+1 - same offer stands if you're ever in Baltimore. I'm a born skeptic and cynic and my teacher and his son are the real deal (as are some of our senior students and instructors)

Absolutely - read or listen to Demello (a Jesuit). A very brief Christian example - "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." This means that one must let go of all attachments to know God. Speak to experienced Kabbalists or Sufis. I used to think that these traditions were ineffective and misguided. Demello showed me otherwise as have my interactions with a few wise practitioners of the Jewish and Muslim mystical traditions. It's all a matter of interpretation.

My meaning was the following - if a person embarks on a genuine and sincere journey of self-discovery, I believe that the vehicle matters less than the inention. With the proper intention and diligence, all paths lead to the same place. There is no other way because there is no other place to be. You are correct that not everyone agrees with that view (perhaps yourself included) and I'm fine with that. I tend to agree with you entirely regarding the limited benefits and negative consequences of the Abrahamic religious traditions. I used to be fairly intense, bordering on militant, about it. I've had some epic debates and nearly destroyed a few relationships because of it. I've mellowed quite a bit in the past few years as I've come to feel that I do not have the authority to tell people that their beliefs are wrong. And even if I do so, it is rarely effective. Rather, I find it more rewarding and more effective (though less immediately or obviously so) to express my values and convictions through the example of my own behavior and choices. I can only change myself - not another. On the other hand, there are many people who find solace and direction in religious observance and affiliation who do not participate in, support, contribute to, or condone negative behaviors. I thoroughly understand Sam Harris' points of view regarding passive facilitation and yet, who has the authority to tell someone what to believe? You can certainly produce illustrative cases where it is completely sensible to do so (suicide attacks on innocents, explotation of those lacking autonomy) but the majority of cases are much more ambiguous (worshiping a dualistic deity, observing rituals and superstitions, contributing to faith based charity, and so on...).

I think that each of these traditions ultimately lead to the same place. Right here.

That's simply a 20th century phenomenon. Probably latter half of the 20th century, in fact. Taijiquan is a martial art. Martial arts were traditionally tested in combat. If you lost a challenge match, you were out of business, injured, or dead, but that was a long time ago. If you want to look at Taijiquan as a martial art, you cannot separate it from fighting. Fa jin alone will not win a fight. I'm quite certain of that.

I think this makes some sense. Specific martial arts (Taijiquan, Xingyiquan, etc...) are training methods, they are not fighting. Fighting is what happens when two or more people try hurt or kill each other. If you want to excel at fighting, I think it's been fairly well proven that you should train in a method that is specifically geared in that direction - boxing and MMA gyms come to mind. If you want to excel at a specific martial art and reap the benefits it has to offer beyond fighting, study your art of choice. It's possible that you could become a good fighter through studying a martial art but it will depend on many factors including the art, your teacher, your own constitution, how much actual fighting you do, and so on. I find it kind of humorous that people are always talking about this or that style being better and equating martial arts with fighting prowess - it isn't that simple. That kao expressed real fajin - no question. It isn't magic. I can do it as can many of the people who practice Taijiquan on this forum, I'm sure. I'm not saying I have the same level of skill of Master Wang but it's just proper training and practice.

I will freely admit that every Qigong form I've learned from my Shifu was taught with a specific breathing pattern. I'll add that as we gained skill he told us to experiment with different patterns and styles of breathing, including natural breathing. There are benefits to be gained through all variations as long as basic principles are followed.

We need to be clear on what you mean by "how good the person is." One can be very "good" at forms and generating fa jin through proper training of timing, breath, posture, and Qi cultivation. One can be very "good" at slapping around one's students in front of a camera. It's another thing altogether to fight in the real world, whether it be a full contact match or real self-defense/combat. I've seen "excellent" martial artists fall apart in seconds after getting hit a few times. I've seen sloppy nobodies beat the crap out of such "excellent" martial arts practitioners. Good fighters train to fight. Not all (actually, not many) martial artists train to fight.

Very nice quote. It's nice to know that Padma could see the common foundation of truth being pointed to by the variety of names.

Be careful about brushing off "natural breathing" out of hand. The practice of natural breathing is a gateway to very advanced breathing practices, including pre-natal breathing. There is nothing amateur about natural breathing, after all is it not Wu Wei?

I think part of the issue is that we are discussing a very wide spectrum of practices from myriad different styles and traditions. In general, what we refer to as Qi Gong includes body movement, breathing, and mind intent. In it's broadest sense, this could be considered to included Taijiquan forms and Daoist meditation practices in addition to what we normally would consider Qi Gong and Nei Gong. Some forms and traditions use little or no body movements and these are often referred to separately as Nei Gong but some teachers continue to categorize these methods as Qi Gong, particularly if specific breathing patterns are emphasized. If there is no physical movement and breathing is not specifically predetermined, we are more in the realm of meditative practices. Some emphasize specific breathing patterns and others de-emphasize breathing in order to achieve natural, unforced breathing. Even when specific breathing patterns are not emphasized, breathing is clearly involved and important and over time will develop in several ways - some obvious and some more subtle. Some techniques focus more on mental manipulations and use of mind intent whereas others de-emphasize this and allow the mind to naturally begin to sense and recognize what is going on internally without setting any preconceived notions or expectations. It's sort of foolish for us to bicker over definitions because there are so many variations. There may be officially sanctioned definitions but what does that matter? If a practice is beneficial and follows basic principles, why try and force it into a definition. Once you learn the basic principles and develop skill, there's no reason not to develop new forms. A knowledgable practitioner can do this very easily. It's certainly true that there was a relatively recent explosion of Qi Gong related activity, most of which has been developed by opportunists looking to profit from its popularity. Some of these forms make no sense at all. Unless you have some experience and a foundation in traditional methods it's difficult to know how "traditional" and credible many forms are, whether you live in China or elsewhere.

I don't think you can tell that much about a persons fighting skill and fa jin skill when they are using one of their students for demonstration purposes. I'd like to see him in a cage match or on the Lei Tai. He looks knowledgable and skillful but he's not being tested.

I'll agree with you there. The fights on that clip where the opponents are wearing blue and yellow took place at the International Kuo Shu Championship Tournament in Hunt Valley, MD. I'm actually the director of Lei Tai fighting at that tournament. We have a few Taijiquan contestants from time to time and they are rarely competitive fighters. But I do give them a lot of credit for having the guts to get up on that Lei Tai. It's amateur level competition but most of the fighters are very well trained and in excellent condition. The guys and gals who are not in top shape don't last long.

I think the most important thing to recognize is that there is no shortcuts or fast way to develop skill and clarity with this stuff. It takes time, patience, and persistence.

You asked for it - I can get pretty wordy when discussing this stuff - I dig it! Beware! My shifu is not one to explain Qi, theory, or philosophy. He doesn't encourage much reading or studying. He taught me how to practice (Taijiquan, Qigong, and Dao meditation primarily). As I gain experience in the meditation exercises, I share that with him and he gives me feedback and advances me as he sees fit. Most of his comments are along the lines of "keep practicing." He rarely tries to correct or offer interpretations of what I experience but gives subtle guidance. So my ideas about Qi are basically my own and a result of my personal experience and practice. Of course I've done some reading about it but analysis and study are more validation and verification rather than education. I have no idea what Qi is really. I've not seen anything to convince me that anyone can classify, categorize, measure, or capture it in any way. So I don't approach it from a perspective of what it is but what it is that I feel and experience. I don't experience QI as stuff. It doesn't seem to be a quantity of anything per se and then again you could equally say that it's everything. It's not something that I think can be held or stored like many like to describe it. Maybe it can, maybe not, it's irrelevant. Working with QI first involves becoming aware of it, feeling it. This is done by "tuning," if you will, the Yi 意 or mind intent to "feel" inside the body (and eventually outside as well). So the practitioner develops skill in sensing the body (and eventually beyond) using something other than sight, hearing, taste, tactile sensation, or smell. At first it's very subtle, difficult, and vague. Daoist techniques allow one to develop considerable clarity and precision in this. The feeling is something like sexual sensation but very subtle in the beginning, and it is often easiest to feel it low in the pelvis, just above the perineum in the area of the prostate. For some, it's easier to feel in the lower dan tian. It's not coincidental that Daoist neigong involves converting Jing (sexual or reproductive essence) to Qi and that the sensation of Jing and Qi is related to sexual sensation. Exactly what is doing the sensing and what is being sensed is not something I can say that I know for sure or can express well. From one perspective, it just is. It is not subject and object but just non-dual experience but the Chinese are nothing if not practical so let's get away from metaphysics. To me, it seems that it is the intersection or interaction of mind 心 and "form" or manifestation. Where mind (xin) interacts with form, this interface for me is Qi. And the human capacity to guide this interaction is Yi. This is nothing more than a description of what I feel and how I interpret it. Words are always lacking in this arena. So for me, Qi is always already there, everywhere. It is the interface of awareness with form. It is not something I can store or concentrate. It is not something at all but it is everything at the same time. It is more a process or interaction than it is stuff of any kind (including energy - what a misused word that is!). But at the same time, to the extent that science can best describe the universe in terms of different forms of energy, perhaps that's exactly what it is. So rather than store or build Qi, my experience is one of becoming progressively more sensitive to it and more skillful in terms of clarity, focus, and precision. The reason that Qi masters and Taijiquan masters can perform impressive feats is because of this sensitivity, clarity, and precision rather than because of an accumulation of some-thing or some-energy, again - only my observation and interpretation. I think our understanding is heavily influence by cultural factors and so most Chinese would disagree with me due to immersion in the Eastern paradigms that constantly talk about building and storing Qi, as if it were quantifiable stuff. Part of the genesis of these ideas was the realization that "I" don't end at my skin. That is an illusion created by my sensory organs and my conditioning. So if I don't end at my skin, how can I trap or contain Qi within the body? And what is the body that it can contain Qi (by contain, I mean store, prevent from diffusion). So Qi is there, "I" tune my mind intent to it and then exercise that capacity to "move it" and work with it. But in this same vein, what am I moving? Is there something to move? Or is it my awareness and intention/attention that are moving? That's more consistent with what I feel. So my ideas are mine alone. I don't claim that they are "correct" but they have worked for me and are consistent with what research I have done. I think that my teacher discourages reading, studying, and unnecessary discussion of Qi and philosophy and theory for a very good reason. All of the theory and intellectual analysis do absolutely nothing to help one experience it and develop clarity and skill in working with it. On the other hand, they do create certain expectations and biases that can be a significant obstacle to a more pure and "naive" experience, which I think is much more valuable than mere understanding. An hour spent cultivating will take you further in your cultivation than a half hour cultivating and a half hour reading or discussing it. I find there to be so much inaccurate stuff in books and on the web about Qi that I'm hoping this gives a different perspective. Again, just my $.02, it's quite possible that I have no idea what I'm talking about! And that's fine too.

Thanks - me in the Netherlands a few years back.

Be well

I agree with you on that 100%. And fa jin ain't flashy. It should be subtle, quick, and felt more than seen.

Vedanta - months of investigating "Who Am I?"

No question that Alayavijana is a foundation of Zen but Zen views it more as pure Buddha-mind, it is not equivalent to the storehouse as it is viewed elsewhere. The stripping away of the dogma was a gradual and progressive phenomenon. You put too much importance in words and concepts. I know you don't see that and I've let go of trying to convince people of anything. None of it matters anyway. So it goes...

I think standing is an excellent way to build Qi awareness. The best way I have experienced to build Qi awareness is Daoist meditation techniques starting with the microcosmic orbit and moving to more complicated exercises. Taijiquan is an excellent method but it's more difficult than standing because the body is moving and the attention is distracted by things like balance and posture. It's much easier to focus when the body is still like when sitting and standing. But once you are experienced with the Taiji form and have a foundation in working with Qi awareness through sitting or standing, the Taiji forms are a superb method of building Qi awareness in my experience.

Not at all accurate - the Zen patriarchs intentionally stripped away the chaff mostly because people have a tendency to cling to it and because it is gratuitous and dogmatic and much more appealing to the Hindu sensibility than the Chinese or Japanese. Otherwise, it would remain in those traditions.

Yeah but it's really just Atman in a different guise and Buddhists have gone through all kinds of machinations over the centuries to deny that and figure out a way to preserve Hindu and Vedanta dogma while trying, at the same time, to preserve the idea of emptiness. Too convoluted for me. This is why I gravitate much more toward Chan/Zen which stripped away all of that down to the essence, which is beautiful and elegant.

I've come to feel that brain does not give rise to mind. It remains a question as to whether mind gives rise to brain. It seems so but that is a gratuitous assertion, how to be sure? Could they arise dependently? I have no answer. But rather than looking at brain as giving rise to mind, it seems more along the lines of brain tuning into mind like an antenna. Or perhaps brain permits a manifestation of mind in relative "form." Perhaps brain channels mind. Clearly, mind remains linked to brain in most instances. Or does it? If so, what is the link? And where does thought fit in? Is thought mind or brain?