forestofclarity

I would say it depends on the person. For some people, the invitation to give up effort and agenda may be just the thing. For some one else, it may not work at all. Imagine you're running and trying to stop, but you forgot how. One person can say, "well, just slow down more and more and you'll eventually stop." Some one can say, "Run even faster. Trust me." At first, these instructions seem to contradict. But if you run fast enough, you'll eventually exhaust yourself and stop naturally.

A by the book explanation and experiment in Kundalini Yoga. Swami T was a student of Swami Dayananda, and also a well versed practitioner of meditation. He is an Advaita Vedanta teacher. Here, he examined the source materials in Sanskrit related to kundalini yoga and tries it out for several weeks. Interesting takes on the subject. He explains what is and what is not in the ancient source material and outlines a basic practice model.

I see, a Zen/Dzogchen/Mahamudra/Shaivite/Kriya/Yogic/Christian/Daoist/Aikido/Tai Chi 13th Bhumi Bodhisattva with 14 "masters without a physical body" who diagnoses your enlightenment based on photos for 200 euros a pop. Sure, sounds totally legit. https://openheartopenheart.blogspot.com/2016/01/full-list-of-my-teachers-and-masters.html https://www.amritamandala.com/bhumi-analysis https://www.amritamandala.com/founder-and-master

I haven't looked that far into it, but the most common methods use an external power source--- either a battery or the field generated by the tesla coil. Some research has shown that it is possible to light up bulbs and led lights with static electricity, so it wouldn't take much.

I'm surprised Verdesi didn't fall to the ground and somersault backwards. I mean, even the guy looks a bit uncomfortable with the over-reacting.

A negative ion generator is not necessary. In the video I posted above from Randi, circa 1995, the device in that case was a "small battery-powered device worn on the body that develops very high voltage at very low amperage, that can be directed from the body of the performer to anything that’s at a lower potential than he is. It’s a form of Tesla coil, and it’s very effective." The bottom line is: 1) John did not demonstrate the criteria you propose (i.e. open to all skeptics/professional debunkers, involving being naked, involving being handcuffed for some reason) and 2) John's video is inconclusive at best, as any video would be. You appear to claim that it could not be faked, but it can and has been faked. Of course, there are many other problems with the "Western" Mo Pai system, not the least of which is that it is considered dangerous and incomplete by at least two Westerners who knew John personally (Kostas and Jim M).

I note that the longer video is a bit different than the presentation here. In this longer video, John ceases contact once he learns the initial film is made public. Years pass, and he reached out again to Mr. Blair for a brief time. He then refuses any more testing after the chopstick incident. So it sounds like he only opened himself up for a very short period of time to very specific individuals, which undercuts this myth that he was open to testing generally. I would also note in this video it is clear that he is wearing his slippers when they are touching his arm and feeling the shocks. Again, not saying he is a fraud, but these videos are hardly any sort of "gold standard" for testing. The Final Qigong Demonstration of John Chang (martialdevelopment.com)

I don't think he was open to all amateurs, nor do these people appear to be professional debunkers. They were introduced to him by the filmmaker John had a prior established relationship with. It is certainly a weird crew: the CEO of an organization initially formed to find the yeti, a doctor who is well known as a competitive sailor, and a neurologist. Neither rank amateurs randomly calling him out, nor an established team versed in either mechanical or electrical engineering, illusions, nor fraud. Rather, they seemed to be contacts of the filmmaker John already knew and was quite sympathetic toward him given his prior documentary. I would note that he wore neither handcuffs and still had his shirt and underwear on, so he failed your established criteria as well. But I would hardly equate this to some stranger calling him out and he immediately agreeing to whatever terms they set out. In addition, Harry Houdini famously went through strip searches from doctors before his escapes. One trick he was said to have used was to put a lockpick on a fishhook, and when he met the doctor would give the doctor a friendly pat the doctor on the back, hooking the lockpick on the rear of the doctor's jacket. At the end of the exam, he would then give the doctor a thank you pat, picking it back up. So here we have a fraud that arguably may have passed your criteria. Most importantly, we don't see his feet. If he had a device in his sandals as is often done, he could have slipped out of his sandals during any search and then put them back on before any demonstration. So there are still ways to defraud in that video (obviously, since it is not well accepted in the skeptical community, as no demonstration would be). An example here: So again, it falls back to your own personal experience. I'm not saying John was a fraud, but the proof is not as conclusive as you claim. So again, why go through all the effort at the request of some one you don't even know?

Gee, I wonder why more people aren't signing up to be stripped, handcuffed, and probed by strangers in a hotel room. Seriously? I wouldn't do this to prove that I can speak English. The fact that you can't see how people would not be willing to sign up for such a thing is troubling and quite frankly undermines the credibility of these posts. Nor could one expect anyone who mastered fa qi to subject themselves to testing by amateurs anyway, or professional debunkers. No matter what you do, it won't be enough. In addition, you've already made it clear that you prefer to hide behind anonymous rumors and innuendoes rather than give people a chance to rebut your allegations. And anyway, the gold standard isn't scientific testing, but self replication. Without being able to learn it yourself, there will always be doubts. Plus, who cares if some one else can do it, if you can't ever learn to do it yourself?

Thanks for flagging, it is like a greatest hits compilation. 1,500 questions!

My apologies--- I asked a serious question and thought I received a serious answer.

The issue is that a set of finite, impermanent causes or conditions produce finite, impermanent effects. They cannot give rise to a permanent, non-finite result-- it would be like fire producing darkness, or constructing space out of wood and steel. Intense spiritual experiences, while certainly valuable to the seeker, do not necessarily carry any truth value. Plenty of people have intense and ecstatic experiences that they claim validate tradition claims. In addition, for every person who feels an intense presence in around a realized person, many people feel nothing. We can say that they lack sensitivity, but really we are just valuing our subjective impressions over others.

How do you know that the moon is made of green cheese? How did you arrive at that conclusion? How confident are you? Unless you are saying that people who claim to have experienced siddhis or abnormal events are somehow beyond all reason and logic, to which I would ask the same questions above.

It is interesting to use the word "permanent"--- how do you know the transformation is permanent and not going to "run out of steam" say, under intense torture, brain damage, chemical imbalances, death, or at some distant point in the future?

I wasn't aiming at your posts--- I find that your posts are always open minded, curious, and respectful.

This is a point that is often overlooked. In this case, either one has a narrow view of the world, or the world is in fact narrow. In a narrow world, there is only a certain set of facts that can be true, and must be true for everyone. This is the source of much conflict and suffering. In the Mahayana Buddhist worldview, there is no objective, underlying reality. The world is a dream or a magical display, and what we call reality is really a group dream. Accordingly, the world is much more fluid, and many things may be true depending on one's karmic view. For example, a day at the beach to a human is often relaxing, but would be fire and molten metal to a hell being. How the world is experienced depends on one's karmic propensities. Our world becomes more heavenly or hell-like in harmony with our view. Which is not to say that any dream is entirely subjective: each dream has its own set of rules. Personally, I have noticed that people on the more awakened side of the spectrum have a wider view all around. So I would say the right answer is the one that works for you and delivers authentic results, given your current karmic makeup. Not everyone has the ability to progress with hard core jhanas, and not everyone has the ability to make use of sudden awakening techniques. This is why we have so many teachers and teachings--- it is the generosity of the divine. A narrow view in that sense denies such generosity.

Yang admits he is bipolar, while also setting forth his meditation technique (liked from his webpage): https://www.instagram.com/p/CLHr4AugTp3/?hl=en I don't see any relevance of his practice to Buddhism, Dzogchen, etc. based on this quote.

Please keep in mind I am only sharing my limited opinion. I don't equate authorization to teach with realization. Again, familiarity with the traditional commentaries shows this is not a modern issue, but has been around all along. The tradition gives a base line by which you can see where people tend to deviate (in both directions, some like to raise the bar as well). However, if one rejects traditional Buddhist criteria, then it strikes me we are no longer talking about Buddhism. In this regard, a teacher can only lead you to what they have realized. To determine whether what they have realized is in line with the Buddhist tradition, the criteria must be the traditional criteria, which represents the combined knowledge of those who have come before in that tradition. In my case, I do think there are people who meet the criteria. They all happen to be within the tradition. Personally, I eventually found I had to choose whether I wanted cool phenomenon, or whether I wanted to pursue the end of suffering. For me, once my aim was clear, things started to fall into place. I'm not saying you are in that juncture, but some one else may be.

A few issues: first, to focus on signposts as attainments, and to openly discuss and spread information around, does a great disservice. This is because whatever you want, your mind will try to manufacture and give you. As the mind becomes closer to the source, its ability to manifest various things become more powerful. Instead of an authentic experience, you are in danger of having a similar, but inauthentic state. This is one reason signs are not openly discussed. One can have many "signs" of realization but lack the fundamental transformation of authentic realization. The aim then becomes less of a Buddhist one, which is the elimination of suffering and the proliferation of buddha qualities, and more about some temporary arising event that arises due to conditions. According to the Buddha's teachings, if arises due to conditions, it is impermanent and will pass when conditions cease, it is a part of samsara (even if the end occurs at the end of a life or multiple lives). The goal is not the build a better samsara, but to end suffering. The ending of suffering is unconditioned. Now being borderless and/or losing a sense of self itself is a state that can be accessed multiple ways, including practice, drugs and mental breakdowns. It can be positive or negative, and occurs inside and outside of meditation communities. The same goes with many other states promoted as signs of awakening. Typically, the more aggressive, forceful, and directed methods result in negatives (see the Cheetah House for numerous examples). This is one reason why the traditional Buddhist criteria is set forth the way it is (i.e., negative states of greed, anger, and delusion decrease, and positive states of joy, equanimity, and wisdom increase).

Regarding Ingram, I think Bikkhu Analayo wrote a great article on the matter in which he stacks the teachings against traditional Theravadan commentaries. Overall, having practiced in this way and interacted with many practitioners, I do think it is a method that produces a lot of interesting experiences but lacks the transformative insights key to Buddhist practice: Meditation Maps, Attainment Claims, and the Adversities of Mindfulness (springer.com)

The Catholics certainly noticed. Father Tiso for one, if you're interested. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/252752/rainbow-body-and-resurrection-by-francis-v-tiso/

Well, it is not really a "secret" so much as it is generally difficult to attain outside of full time practice and retreat. It is written about in the traditional scriptures and commentaries (which is one reason it helps to be familiar with them). Jhana is a bit of a catch-call-- spiritual practice, medical practice, sexual redirection practice for celibates, etc. To some extent, there is a similar process at play in our own lives as we are refreshed by deep sleep, which to most of us is a state of ignorance unless you practice some sort of night time yoga. However, it is not clear to me that energy manifests the same way in Theravada Buddhism as it does in Daoism or other paths. So for example, I don't think you build/concentrate a dan tian by achieving jhanic states. Nirdoha is not seen as the goal for Mahayana paths, and in fact is an obstacle to the Mahayana way, which is often described as becoming a Buddha with the power to help sentient beings. Which, to answer Dwai's inquiry earlier, is the point of being able to manifest in illusion post-enlightenment from a Buddhist POV. There are bodhisattas and Buddhas in Theravada, but they are a little differently structured in my experience.

That's great that something positive came from your negative experience. I am certain that you and others can find a better path.

It is very interesting to see where people ended up after some time-- be it connecting to more traditional sources or spiraling into madness with DIY systems. It will be more interesting in another 10-20 years if the forum is still around.