NotVoid

Does anyone know whatever became of Chinese qigong master Yan Xin? When I check what appears to be the offical Yan Xin webpage ( http://yanxinqigong.net/ ) and elsewhere, there seems to be no info on Yan Xin after about the early nineties or so. He seemed to be actively promoting his qigong through workshops and that sort of thing in the late eighties and maybe early nineties, but there seems to be next to no info about him after that period?

Anyone have any experience with Eeeman circuits? If so, what is your experience? For those not familiar with Eeeman Circuits, it involves placing copper plates connected by copper wire under parts of your body while lying down, such as under the head and base of the spine or feet, and with copper grips also connected by wires for the hands. I think it is interesting that Eeman thought there were polarities in different parts of the body/energy body, somewhat similar to the way this is viewed in TCM and related. I haven't tried this yet, but I plan to give this a try to see what effects I can feel, if any. Any thoughts on using aluminum instead of copper for the plates? Did Eeman outline any specific reasons for using copper specifically? The basic idea seems to be that different parts of the body or energy body have different polarities, and that by connecting opposite polarities together via the copper plates and wires, circuits are formed which can supposedly balance and heal and energize, if connected together correctly. Connecting incorrectly can supposedly cause negative effects rather than positive. Eeman's book 'Co-operative Healing - The Curative Properties of Human Radiations" was first published in 1947. Here's another variation showing the polarities. Polarities on the hands may depend on whether you are right handed or left handed, I believe. I will need to read through the book to confirm this, however. Here's an overview: Eeman’s Healing BioCircuits http://borderlandresearch.com/eemans-healing-biocircuits

The following are excerpts from lectures given by Yan Xin on levels/signs which can be achieved/observed through Taoist and Buddhist Qigong cultivation. Taoist and Buddhist qigong has to some degree or other been intermingled throughout history, with experience and practices shared between different traditions to some extent, so it was a toss up of whether I posted this in the Taoist or Buddhist forums. For example, Quanzhen Taoism draws quite heavily from Buddhist ideas and practices, and various practices attributed to Shaolin may have had roots in or influences from Taoist practices and ideas. Various lectures by Yan Xin were compiled into a book entitled "Secrets and Benefits of Internal Qigong Cultivation", but that book is no longer in print. There is lots of good information in that book on qigong practice if you can find a copy. Yan Xin's descriptions of the different levels and signs attainable through Taoist and Buddhist qigong practice are quite interesting. Based on Yan Xin's description of signs for Taoist qigong, he seems to be referring to signs relating to Taoist neidan practice. I have no idea of what specific sort of qigong Yan Xin might have been referring to in regards to the 'Five Opening Functions'. _______________________________________________________________ Six Fundamental Procedures of Taoist Qigong 1. Fire Burning in Dantian As one reaches a certain level of practice, they will feel a fire-like burning sensation in the lower abdomen (Dantian). Do not fear this phenomenon, and do not think that you are sick. This is the meaning of the saying "three true fires." If one is afraid of this phenomenon, one cannot progress further in their qigong practice. 2. Heat Roasting Two Kidneys After having experienced "Fire Burning in Dantian," keep practicing, and the feeling of heat will then go down to the back of the body. One's perineum and waist will feel hot as if one's kidneys were boiling or roasting in a pot. The progression from "Fire Burning in Dantian" to "Heat Roasting Two Kidneys" is very difficult. 3. Eyes Shining with Golden Light After experiencing "Heat Roasting Two Kidneys," with continued practice, one will attain the level of "Eyes Shining with Golden Light." At this level, one's eyes and brain will radiate golden light. At this point, one can even burn clothes merely by giving a look. This is due to the substances of high energy radiated from the eyes when applying one's skill (gong). 4. Wind Blowing Behind the Ears After reaching "Eyes Shine With Golden Light," keep practicing. You may experience a phenomenon behind the ears which resembles the sound of wind blowing. 5. Dove Sings Behind the Head After reaching "Wind Blowing Behind the Ears," keep practicing to the point of hearing sounds like the calls of animals, for example a dove singing "gu, gu, gu" or "jiu, jiu, jiu." Sometimes one's whole body will feel the sound of thunder. Because one's nerve center is located in cerebellum, any change there will lead to changes in the whole body. 6. Body Gushing and Nose Breathing At this level, one's entire body feels like a strong tide gushing or boiling water steaming. One's nose will twitch and inhale spontaneously. When one has reached the level of "Body Gushing and Nose Breathing," one has completed the "Great Dan" of Taoist qigong. _______________________________________________________________ "Five Opening Functions" from Buddhist Qigong The latent potential of the human body is incredible, and the most effective method for developing and exploring this potential is qigong. Advanced qigong practitioners progress through the levels of the Five Eye Openings. The "Five Opening Functions" are skills cultivated through high-level internal qigong, which originated in Chinese Buddhist Qigong. These skills refer to the development of non-visual "sight" functions through qigong practice. The higher the level, the more automatic the function. 1. The Opening of the Naked Eye After developing this function, one will have improved vision, far better than that of normal people. Usually, people can see near but not far, in the light but not in the dark, the front but not the back of things. Those who open the Naked Eye can clearly see both near and far. The opening of the Naked Eye eliminates any problem with far or nearsightedness and increases visual sensitivity. The ability to see far depends on one's level of achievement or ability. Those at a higher level are able to see much further than normal people. Even diseases such as nearsightedness and astigmatism can be corrected by the opening of the Naked Eye. 2. The Opening of the Heavenly Eye After reaching the Opening of the Naked Eye, further training will lead to the development of a "non-visual vision" called the Opening of the Heavenly Eye. At this point, one obtains the ability to see the interior of things, as well as perform remote visualization. These special functions indicate the opening of the Tianmu point inside the brain, or the opening of the luminance or luminescence devices in other locations on the body. The opening of the Heavenly Eye is associated with the ability to visualize a screen in the forehead on which one can see images of things far away, as well as the ability to see through objects and into the human body. The human body has over three hundred acupuncture points. Any acupuncture point can luminesce, and any luminescing point can develop a non-visual function. Though many people who have attained this level only see with their forehead or "Wisdom Eye" area, some may have visual functions located in their Yuzheng (Jade Pillow, back of the brain), Tanzhong (mid-chest), or Laogong (the middle of the palm) acupuncture points. Some people can also see with their ears, back, feet or acupuncture points on their ten fingers. Many people have been to Buddhist temples and seen a statue of Bodhisattva Guanyin who possesses a thousand eyes and hands. Her body has over forty points luminescing, and the light coming out of each luminescing place is splits into twentyfive directions. From a qigong perspective, we can see the meaning behind Bodhisattva Guanyin's thousand eyes and hands. The Opening of the Heavenly Eye is only the second level of basic Buddhist Qigong training. By merely seeing things, one still may not understand them. When one sees an object, one can only describe how it looks, such as square, sharp, dark, et cetera, yet one may still not be able to define the meaning of this object. 3. The Opening of the Wisdom Eye After obtaining an opening of the Heavenly Eye, the next level is the opening of the Wisdom Eye. Some qigong masters feel that if one can accurately visualize other places and is able to see through things, one should avoid doing so in order to conserve energy. By possessing, but not utilizing Heavenly Eye skills, the energy associated with them will build up and help one to reach the next level, that of the Wisdom Eye. The Opening of the Wisdom Eye requires that four skills be real and complete. They are: the Multiple Eye, Analytical Eye, Historical Eye, and Predictive Eye. (1) Multiple Eye: Multiple eye is the ability to see in various angles simultaneously and stereoscopically. Normally, people see one surface at a time, for example, a cup with a handle. Ordinarily, people can see the handle from the side, but not from the front. One who possesses Multiple Eye function can see the cup from many angles simultaneously. The Multiple Eye is not the highest level. Although one can see the complete shape of an object, they are still unable to draw a conclusion from it. (2) Analytical Eye: This involves the ability to analyze. With this eye, one knows immediately what an object is, as well as what it means. For example, one may have never learned the word "tea cup," but upon observing a tea cup, they know the word instantly because there are many people in the universe with this knowledge. One may also carry this knowledge from their parents. They may use their inherited information to access the experience and wisdom of their ancestors in judging and determining the complete meaning of a piece of information. In this manner, one may know what something is simply by looking at it. Many people have questioned this phenomenon. People ask, "how can one understand without learning? Isn't this superstition?" Because of this attitude, many people misunderstand qigong and extraordinary functions. From a qigong perspective, it is not that one understands without learning, but that one obtains this knowledge through the genetic material passed down by their ancestors. In addition, other people's signals and information act like computer data that may be saved and retrieved. (3) Recalling Eye: The Recalling Eye involves being able to trace back and visualize the past. Using this skill, one may visualize current and residual information, as well as figures and sounds from the past. Seeing a ceramic cup, one possessing the Recalling Eye can see that ten years ago it was in the form of Kaolin clay in a hill. There are reports of qigong masters who can diagnose the symptoms of a disease as well as its history and cause. This is the Opening of the Recalling Eye. (4) Predicting Eye: The Predicting Eye allows one to foresee and predict the future. All developments have a certain direction and tendency. Change starts with the quantitative and moves to the qualitative. Once one has opened the Predicting Eye, one may witness the progress of quantitative change. There is a story dating back to 500 B.C., where Bian Que, a famous doctor with extraoridanry qigong functions, meets Duke Huan of Qi. Bian Que foresaw the development of illness within Duke Huan and predicted that if he did not seek treatment within five days the illness would enter his marrow. Predicting with the Predicting Eye is similar to our modern predictions or assessments of the safety of a house. The only difference is that people with qigong functions make predictions using their qigong ability. The higher the ability or energy level, the more stable and accurate the result. This is not merely fortune telling based on ones imagination, this is applying one's ability to analyze an event and its surroundings in order to make a judgment. One has mastered the Wisdom Eye function if they are able to accurately see the past, present, and future of an object. 4. The Opening of the Dharma Eye The Dharma Eye has two properties: Energy Eye and Movement Eye. The Energy Eye means the possession of high energy. The Movement Eye means the ability to move objects and correct problems. The Wisdom Eye merely belongs to the ' level of perception. The Dharma Eye not only sees clearly, but can also make corrections through the application of qigong. For those possessing the Dharma Eye, it is possible to break a piece of iron wire by staring at it with high concentration. Other corrections include restoring torn leaves and postcards, et cetera. This is not magic, this is qigong. There is an old Chinese saying that "the secrets of heaven cannot be leaked." This skill is hard to comprehend, and only those at a high level of qigong will understand its meaning. 5. The Opening of Buddha Eye Once one's Buddha Eye has opened, Buddha light will radiate from one's body and they will exhibit proper courtesy, sincerity, strict principles and deep understanding. In addition, one may enlighten sentient beings. The Dharma Eye stage is already at a very high level - it can correct things during observation. But it is still not the highest level of qigong skill because it is limited to correcting things only when observing them with qigong. Without applying qigong, the effect is reduced. Once one reaches the level of the Buddha Eye, their aura becomes very strong. Upon meeting someone who has attained this level you will be surrounded by and benefit from their aural light. Problems can be solved by this person automatically, without the deliberate application of energy. Buddha light shines, but of course it cannot shine like the Sun. The energy of the Sun is tremendous and the energy of a human being is limited. The illumination of the Buddha light is simply a metaphor. Some statues in temples are decorated with golden shining colors. This is probably based on descriptions of auras from a qigong perspective. Having reached this level, one is able to correct problems automatically and do good things for many people.

From about 1945 to 1948, Mirin Dajo (real name: Arnold Gerrit Henskes) demonstrated on many occasions that he could have rapiers and swords passed right through his chest from back to front or vice versa, or right through his lower abdomen, passing through various internal organs, and not have any noticeable bleeding either externally or internally or any other apparent ill effects. One one occasion he was observed and tested by some doctors while doing this, including having an X-Ray done that showed the sword passing right through his body. When the sword was removed, he would press on the entrance and exit wounds for a short time and that was all he apparently needed to do to prevent any bleeding after the sword was removed. He even demonstrated that he could walk and jog both when the sword was in him and almost right away after the sword was removed as well. Very freaky. Don't watch this video if you are squeamish. You can read some more about this guy here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirin_Dajo He apparently died several days after 'voices' instructed him to swallow a steel needle, which he did and then had surgically removed. One explanation might be that maybe the guy was being controlled and protected by spirits or some such thing, if you believe that such things are possible, until those voices told him to swallow the steel needle. Then his amazing invulnerability seemed to have disappeared. It was apparently even claimed that he allowed himself to be shot in the head twice with a gun, but I don't know if there is any decent evidence to support that. So, what do you think? Were spirits interacting and protecting this guy (something like the people in the East who can withstand fire and sharp knives when they claim they are under the influence of 'spirits'), or what do you think? Just an extraordinary ability to control internal bleeding and heal very fast? A very strange ability at any rate...

Hi Differently. It looks like if you click on the PayPal button for the PDF book, that the PayPal web site still allows you to enter in a credit card number to pay for the item without creating a PayPal account, so it looks like you can still buy the book if you have a credit card and don't have a PayPal account. If that still doesn't work for you, you can email 'dean at qi dot org' and probably arrange to send them a money order instead. All the best...

Many people generalize about daoism and say things like, "daoists do this", and "daoists do not do that", etc. However, as I have pointed out here before, the term daoism covers many things, and IMO there is a wide variation in views and practices in daoism. Therefore for someone to say that daoists don't concern them self with what might happen after death is very misleading, if not completely false. Most definitely there are branches or schools or practices under the umbrella label of 'daoism' which do concern them self quite a bit with such things. If you want to read a book written by a daoist from Lao Shan who goes into a lot of detail of his experience with topics such as 'life after death', and the notion of karma, etc. then you can purchase the book in PDF format translated fully into English here: 'Dao and De: Life and Afterlife' by Wu Dao Zhenzi. http://qi.org/products/ Scroll down to the bottom of the web page for the PDF book 'Dao and De: Life and Afterlife' by Wu Dao Zhenzi. As the author of this book points out, what he is describing in the book is not a belief system, where a person is just told how things are supposed to be, and they can either then believe it or not, but he describes a system of practices which the author learned as a disciple at a daoist temple which allows a person to learn about such things for them self through direct personal experience, just as we learn about the physical world around us through direct observation and experimentation. Whether any given person accepts such a premise as being potentially valid or not is not really the point, but it is the approach that the author of the book said he followed in his daoist training in a temple on Lao Shan before the cultural revolution, if I remember correctly now.

I see a few people seem to be getting fairly bent out of shape and going on the attack against others simply because those others have expressed some skepticism about what is shown in these videos. Why would some people get upset and go on the attack against others just because some other people have a different opinion than they do? The answer is of course because of belief. When a person has certain beliefs which are at least fairly important within their world view, they will immediately start feeling very uncomfortable if they are presented with information or views which may oppose something they really want to believe. Some common reactions/responses when this occurs are: 1) Completely ignoring the opposing information or arguments. 2) Going on the attack (personal insults, strange rationalizations, make untrue accusations, introduce red herrings and straw man arguments, etc. etc.). Since we have definitely been seeing a fair bit of the above from a couple of persons here, it is a pretty sure bet that they are reacting from a belief/world view protection position. Unfortunately there is just little to no chance of reasoning with a person when they are acting/reacting in such a way, as I am sure everyone has experienced many, many times in their life. There are three positions that a person can take when encountering something that is a fair bit out of range of their common everyday experience: 1) Accept it and believe it at face value without any questioning. This can occur when this out of the ordinary thing or event or whatever fits in with some beliefs a person already holds. Since it helps support some beliefs a person already has, it can be embraced with little to no questioning. 2) Neither believe or not believe. Just simply reserve coming to any conclusions at all until you are able to get a lot more information and/or see or experience this in person for yourself, etc. 3) Reject it and believe it is definitely false, again just based on face value. Like 1) above, this would also be a matter of belief if a person doesn't have some decent evidence to back up their belief that it is definitely false. So, from the above three items we can see that 1 and 3 are matters of unconfirmed belief unless a person already has some significant direct personal experience with the matter in question, or otherwise has a lot of decent and reliable evidence which strongly supports their belief. In the case where there is just not sufficient evidence or related experience to come to a reasonable conclusion about something, then I think that taking the stance in item 2) above would be the most reasonable position. This is all that I have been saying. Lao Sun Tao: Jumping all over people just because they express a bit of healthy skepticism about something like this makes no sense. I suggest you read what I wrote above here and think it over. No reasonable person is going to want to discuss things with you much around here if you start jumping all over people and twisting their words, etc. simply because they express a different opinion than you. If you are behaving this way, it is a pretty good chance it is because you have beliefs on the line which you are very sensitive about. If you are so sensitive about such topics, it is probably better to avoid such topics rather than attacking people who might have a different point of view than yourself, no? Treating people with fairness and respect can go a long way in this world. All the best...

Apeiron&Peiron: You are seeing all sorts of things in my comments that simply aren't there. I just pointed out that you can't take videos at face value, and that videos that contain stuff like this often turn out to be false if looked into. I actually also went way out of my way to state several times that it all doesn't mean that this guy's videos are necessarily fake, but there is no way to tell just from the videos. You are arguing against something that has little to do with what I have actually said. Bless you my son.

Sorry, but what you said doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. All I have done is point out that you can't take what you see in videos of this type at face value. Of course the videos are questionable to me. The only way I could say that what is shown in those videos might be real is if I have personally experienced such stuff myself in person. Otherwise there is just no way to tell for sure. I think that really should go without saying however. If I were interested in possibly learning how to 'make gusts of winds', I would try to meet with that guy in person and see for myself what he could do in person. That would be the only way to tell if there might really be something to it. Whether there is another video or videos with someone 'teaching' students to wave their hands around a tree that is already blowing in the wind, is neither here nor there. If someone wants to blindly believe stuff in videos like this that is their prerogative, but belief or not you still don't know if what you are seeing in videos like this is real or not just based on videos alone. Lao Sun Tao was admonishing people for not blindly accepting what is shown in some videos, which also doesn't make any sense. If you want to know if something might be real or not, the best way is to go and experience it in person and then you will have some real personal experience to base your opinion on, rather than just questionable videos. Why do I get the feeling that I am wasting my time pointing out things that should already be obvious anyway? All the best...

Lao Sun Tao: There is a world of difference between someone being open minded and someone blindly accepting most anything just at face value without first looking into it further and using some critical thinking. There is all kinds of false information and fakers and scammers and deluded people out there in this world. That being the case, it is just not a good idea to blindly accept stuff like this at face value. There might be something to it, but there is a good chance that it is not real as well. Some of us have been around the block more than a few times and know that a lot of stuff out there like this is often not what it appears to be, if a person takes some time to look into it further. Rather than admonishing people for not blindly believing as you do, why not put in some effort and look into this further for yourself first? The fact is you just can't tell for certain if effects like are shown in these videos are real or not just by watching the videos, as I have already pointed out. If you want to blindly believe that what this guy is showing in his videos is real without any questioning on your part, that is up to you, but my suggestion for you, since you seem to be so certain it is real, would be to contact the guy and ask him if you can visit him in person to watch a demonstration of what he can do up close, in person. If he says no, or otherwise starts making excuses then that would seem to be kind of suspicious, right? If he lets you come to see a demo in person, arrange to go see him and then report back here on what you have seen. That way it won't just be blind belief any more on your part, but you will have made an effort to look into and see what is really going on. All the best...

I think it is probably a good idea to hold some healthy skepticism towards anything along these lines that is shown in videos, because videos can leave a fair bit of room for various types of tricks to be used. Everything from off camera tricks and video editing to video image editing and generation and manipulation effects can be used to fool people. This doesn't mean that any given video of this type is necessarily fake of course, but when you factor in other factors like the high degree that he can supposedly easily whip up the wind in a concentrated area and whatever else he demonstrates, it sure seems at least questionable. The guy also doesn't seem to give any info on his website about exactly where he supposedly learned these types of 'skills'. That may be another warning sign that things may not be quite right. People who are reasonably skilled at doing video graphics manipulation and CGI and that sort of thing can create some pretty convincing effects, and such software is readily available these days. Here is a video example that I think shows how CGI can sometimes be quite convincing if done pretty well. My point being that just because you may not see signs of obvious video tricks in a video, it doesn't mean that tricks of some sort or another were definitely not used. In the following video, some digital graphics students made a CGI video utilizing 3D graphics generation and manipulation techniques etc. which is completely fake, but their video went viral shortly after they posted it, and they had millions of people completely fooled or at least unsure if it was fake or not before the students later posted a comment on their video pointing out that the video was not real, and was done using CGI techniques as part of a graphics course they were taking. The eagle in the following video is a 3D graphics generated and manipulated image. It is not a real eagle, and no child was lifted off the ground by an eagle. All video graphics manipulation. Completely fake. Again, my point being that some healthy skepticism about what you see in any video these days that has something questionable in it is probably a good idea. When it comes to videos or still images, it is just hard to say for sure these days about whether something might be faked or not. Golden Eagle Snatches Kid If the guy who made those 'aerokinesis', etc., videos is the real deal, he should have no problem demonstrating to independent third parties in person. If he hasn't done so, and until he does so in front of some credible independent third parties, then there seems to be at least a few different reasons here to be skeptical of his videos. Another reason to be skeptical is that he is selling online courses to supposedly teach others how to do this. When someone is selling something and producing videos like that to help generate business for what they are selling, then I think that's even more reason to be skeptical. Again, this all doesn't mean it is necessarily fake, but I think there are at least some good reasons to have some healthy doubts here.

Reality - what is it? We all likely have at least some concept in our mind about what 'reality' is, even if we might not be able to articulate well this concept or concepts that we hold about 'reality'. So what is reality actually? Is there 'really' even such a clear cut thing? It seems to me that 'in reality', it is not an easy topic at all to address, all things considered. A dictionary definition of the word reality will probably give something along these lines: re·al·i·ty rēˈalədē/ noun noun: reality 1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. 2. the state or quality of having existence or substance. Also, for consideration, I don't think anyone can deny that wacking your thumb with a heavy steel hammer will probably do some damage to your thumb, and will probably hurt a lot unless you have some paralysis in that area, whether a person 'believes' or not in the reality of heavy steel hammers and their properties. Generally though when referring to reality, at least in a modern Western view, a widely held view is that it is something that can be *physically* confirmed to 'exist' whether people may believe in it or not, but there is maybe some room in there to at least allow that some 'things' might possibly be real which are not physically observable or physically confirm-able. In modern physics, I believe there are theories of other dimensions beyond what we consider to be the three physical dimensions and time. However, I don't think the concept of reality necessarily needs to be limited to the concept of dimensions. If a person has some sort of an experience that has a noticeable impact on them to any degree, then does that experience hold 'reality' no matter what the nature of the experience was? For example, a person can have a dream or vision of some sort and potentially be very noticeably influenced by the dream or vision to some degree or other. If something does not hold any 'reality', then how could it influence a person in any way? The clear lines of what 'reality' is may begin to break down a little bit if viewed in this way. A dream or vision may not at all be part of 'consensus reality' in any way, but it can still potentially have strong impact on the individual having the experience. Another example is a given person may focus on something or some activity that is important to them and which has a lot of influence or meaning for them personally, and which can potentially elicit strong change in that person, but which to someone else seems pointless and meaningless and empty. So, what then is 'reality'? Even within the concept of 'consensus reality' there can be seeming 'cracks' that appear from time to time if a person is paying attention, so even the concept of 'consensus reality' is maybe not so clear cut as we might like to think. Related to this, it seems to me that as long as we are inside a particular 'reality bubble' of some type or other, whether we are talking about 'physical reality' or something on a smaller scale, it can seem very 'real' and consistent; but, if a person pays close attention, they may sometimes notice things occurring that just don't quite fit the 'mold'. A bit of a 'crack' may have formed on the surface of the reality 'bubble', at least momentarily. I believe all people have built-in mental 'protection mechanisms' that help us to block out or dismiss these inconsistencies which we may encounter from time to time, which helps us maintain a more stable sense of 'reality', but we can learn to bypass or at least reduce the influence of these mental 'protection mechanisms' with observation and intent. Certain types of 'cultivation' practices may focus on or make use of similar observation approaches to help us observe or temporarily bypass or reduce the influence of some of our mental filters. Such approaches can potentially help us to see that 'reality' is possibly not what we may think it is. The question may then begin to arise in a person's mind, if reality is not exactly what we think it is, then what is reality? Is there really even some clear cut 'thing' out there called reality? Personally, I don't think the question can be easily answered, if it can even be answered satisfactorily at all in logical or rational terms, so I am not really expecting answers to such questions. Really I am just expressing some of my own current thoughts and ideas and personal observations on the matter here for consideration, in case anyone might be interested. :-) Some notable thoughts by some others on the matter: Descartes said to the effect, "I think, therefore I am." Robin Williams said, "Reality. What a concept!" Popeye said, "I am what I am." I think these are all views equally worthy of consideration as well, and much more aptly said.

The concept of karma doesn't necessarily have any connotation of punishment, or concepts of heaven and hell. That all depends on the exact school of thought as well as individual interpretations. In some schools of thought karma is described along the lines of actions evoke or 'attract' certain other following actions or conditions. In other cases I have heard the concept of karma being described along the lines of 'mental attachments' which continually lead one into certain circumstances which reflect those mental attachments or mental state. So karma could be thought of as actions invoking other actions and conditions, or as mental attachments leading one into certain specific conditions like iron being pulled towards a magnet. What a person accepts as possible in that area may depend on their background and particular school(s) of thought they hold to, and their own personal experience, etc. Many far Eastern schools of thought hold to some concept of karma or at least something along those lines. What any given person may accept or reject as possible or reasonable in these regards is another matter. There is likely no clear cut right or wrong there.

Silent Thunder, yes, I think it is human nature to assume that our assumptions and perceptions and interpretations about the world and universe around us are mostly pretty accurate and reliable, as after all our minds are constantly being fed back with information through our senses which continually 'confirms' those assumptions and perceptions and interpretations. The problem as I see it is it appears that the information that is constantly feeding into our minds through our senses is very much unconsciously filtered and massaged by our belief systems and associated belief protection mechanisms, etc. I would suggest that this may possibly be occurring at a much higher degree than any of us might realize and be able to easily accept. Are we all looking at the world around us as it really is, or as we collectively perceive it to be? The modern world views of today are no doubt quite different in various ways than they were one and more centuries ago, and I think there is no reason to assume that changes in world views and subsequent 'understandings' will not continue to evolve over the coming decades and centuries as well.

Well we are all in the same boat just trying to make our way the best we can. Like most anyone else, I am far, far from perfect.

Hi Karl. I have not suggested anything in my comments here about consciousness altering 'reality'. I have suggested that whatever 'reality' may be, it seems beliefs can have a strong influence on how we perceive it. I have observed that this typically seems to happen at an unconscious level, but I think we can raise our awareness of how this process works and become more conscious of those mental constructs and processes which strongly influence our perception. Regarding consciousness having a part in possibly creating or influencing/altering 'reality', although I have not suggested anything about this, it seems to me that for all anyone knows for certain there could at least possibly be something to such a concept. I think It would be an unsupportable belief for someone to suggest that such a thing is definitely impossible, just as it is an unsupportable belief for someone to suggest that 'reality' definitely only consists of what we can currently observe and measure and interpret with our physical senses and current physical instruments and current scientific world view, and that our current scientific views of 'reality' are completely accurate and complete. I think current trends in modern physics give indications that whatever reality is, it seems it may well possibly be a fair bit stranger than such a simplistic Newtonian-like view of the world and universe. In other words, It would be very much a matter of faith for someone to suggest that consciousness definitely does not interact with 'reality' in some way or another. This would be a good example of how unconscious beliefs can be mistaken for demonstrable fact. I sincerely doubt that anyone could convincingly prove such an assertion in any reasonable way, no matter how much they may *believe* such to be true. You continue to talk about 'reality' as if it is something that is already fully understood in all aspects. I just don't think that is the case. In actuality I think modern physics is showing that the 'deeper' scientists look into such things, the more puzzling it seems to become. From what I understand, modern day physicists are throwing theories around which include concepts such as multiple dimensions and multiple parallel universes, etc. It sure doesn't seem to me like things are at all so straight forward and clear cut. It sounds like possibly despite all we currently know about the world and universe, that we may possibly have a long way to go yet, and some current accepted theories could possibly even be altered yet in the future for all anyone really knows for certain. I won't harp on such things any much further, as I know the pointlessness of doing so. If someone has very strong and fixed beliefs about what 'reality' is, no amount of discussion is likely going to change that, even when it can be pointed out that at least some very qualified modern day physicists them self have been and are considering very strange and abstruse ideas as serious possibilities about 'reality', ideas which may stress and stretch the very limits of our conceptual minds. I personally still maintain the possibility that whatever 'reality' might be, it may possibly be much more different and mysterious at its essence than anything we currently may conceive and assume. That is the essence of what I have been suggesting here. I realize that such a notion may well conflict with some or even many people's beliefs about such things, but that is how I personally currently see things anyway.

Hello silent thunder. Even though something may be quite natural and a fairly simple process, I guess that doesn't mean at all that it will necessarily be easy.

Hi Karl. I am not committed to any particular point of view. My own personal observation however is that each and every one of us view the world/universe ('reality') through the filters of our beliefs. It seems to me that there may be little chance of ever getting a better understanding of 'reality' if a person does not first look into the nature of beliefs and spend some amount of time observing how our beliefs influence our world view. As an example of how important I think this is to the way we each perceive the world/universe around us (and likely within us as well), I have observed that when people are immediately dismissive or insulting or attack others' ideas and points of view that differ notably in some way from some important belief or beliefs that a person holds, that there is a pretty high chance that what is really at work is a natural unconscious protection response to try to help protect the stability of a person's own belief system. Because this occurs, it can be very hard for new ideas and points of view to even slightly penetrate the consciousness of someone who may have strong beliefs to the contrary. It appears that the stronger or more important the belief or beliefs are that are being challenged by some other idea or point of view, the stronger the unconsciously activated belief protection responses can be. Have you ever tried to convince someone of something that goes strongly against their beliefs or world view? Good luck with that. The reason I am mentioning all this is that If my observations are at all accurate about beliefs and the associated unconscious belief/world view protection mechanisms being in place in each and every one of us, then if a person does not ever take any time to look into this in them self to see how our beliefs and the associated unconscious belief protection mechanisms strongly influence our perceptions and ability to consider new ideas and concepts, then any other efforts put towards trying to understand 'reality' might possibly be quite hindered. I think there is nothing much more simple than mere self-observation to potentially help improve self awareness. My suggestion here is that any increase in self awareness also may, potentially at least, work towards an increase in our ability or potential to approach understanding 'reality'. Although perhaps from a materialistic point of view these may seem like two completely separate and unconnected things, I am suggesting that possibly these two things may actually be closely inter-related, if not inseparable. :-)

Karl, I think I see where you are coming from. It appears we differ in points of view., silent thunder, questioning is natural. There is nothing to fear from it.

I think that what we observe or think we observe, or what we can verify within a specific limited framework or system in no way necessarily determines the full extent or nature of reality. When working within the limitations of a framework or system, we are confined to those very limitations. The framework we are within may well highly filter or color or limit our view of what may be a much larger or very different picture overall. The framework we are in may be giving us a very limited or distorted view of overall 'reality'. Just because we cannot easily move or observe outside of that framework, it seems to me that this in no way means that only what can be observed and conceptualized and analyzed within the framework we are 'in' is all that could be real, nor do I think such an approach would necessarily be a complete or accurate overall picture of 'reality'. For all we know we could be way off the mark taking such an approach. A basic example I can think of is a person watching a movie in the dark in a movie theater. If the movie is well done and very captivating, the person is mostly only aware of what is going on in the movie projected onto the movie screen, and not aware of anything much else outside of that, at the time, and if other audience members aren't making noise. From inside the movie theater in the dark, we only know mainly about the movie but we can't observe or know much beyond that at the time and under those circumstances. That's not the best example, I know, but I think it gives the general idea of how a framework can be very limiting and misleading when trying to draw conclusions about a wide scale view about 'something' which may 'extend' way beyond the limitations of the tools at our disposal, whether they be physical tools or physical senses, etc. Therefore, what we think of as reality may potentially be far off from the mark. Whether it is or it isn't is anyone's guess, but as I have mentioned, I think sometimes some 'cracks' can appear, even if only momentarily, which may give hints that all is not really as it may seem. Also, as I have mentioned, there are also various 'cultivation' methods that may be used to potentially help us drop some of our limitations and filters we may have on our perception, if they work at all as advertised.

No worries Marblehead. Your comments are always welcome however they may be perceived.

Thanks for the reply Karl. The objectivist view I guess then is that for something to be real it must be verifiable as existing in 'physical reality'? I mentioned that physicists have theorized that there may be dimensions beyond the three accepted physical dimensions and time. So if the physicists are right about there being other dimensions beyond the observable three physical dimensions and time, then it seems to me that something could be 'real' that we could not observe with our physical senses or physical instruments. However, that is actually not what my original post was about however, as I was not questioning what the limits of reality are and how this concept of reality could be verified, but I was raising questions about whether the general concept of reality itself is 'really' what we may think it is. I personally don't think 'reality' is something that can be determined through logical analysis. People can try, but I think they will likely end up just running in circles. By attempting to do so, I think we would be imposing conceptual limitations on something (or maybe no-thing) that may not fall within those limitations. If so, then we would be off on the wrong track right from the get go. At any rate, I have no answers on the matter. Just expressing some of my current thoughts. Many people likely have some different ideas on such things as well.

No, I have been away from this forum for a while. I know well that raising certain types of questions in a forum such as this can bring out interesting responses, shall I say, so all is good. Your responses are welcome even if they may seem like blatant trolling to the casual observer.

Hi Marblehead. Did I even write anything? Are you and I even having a discussion? I do admit that It at least seems that something of this sort is happening. Although something along these lines does indeed seem to be going on, is that which is going on 'really' what we think it is, is more along the lines of what I was looking at. I am really just raising a few questions for consideration. Noting more. I know full well the potential perils of even taking such a minor diversionary course from the norm however.

Hi Karl. Ok, you seem to speak about reality as if it is something that you think is clearly identifiable. If so, what is it to you? My personal view is that 'reality' is maybe not so clear cut as we might think. 'Dream' or 'vision' are just labels to certain types of experience. In my view this in no way determines whether something is or isn't part of 'reality'. We can arbitrarily define that dreams and visions are not real, but that doesn't mean that our definition is necessarily wholly accurate. If a person has a dream that has strong influence on them, then it seems it may hold some degree of 'reality', even if it may be hard to pin down. Those are just some ideas on the matter. I don't hold to any strict view on the matter. Just throwing about some views for consideration.