forestofclarity

It is not clear to me. The title of the link is "states of consciousness" and even the state "beyond consciousness" is described as a "perspective" and an "experience of Reality." These are all within consciousness. The idea that a state, experience, feeling, or some X beyond consciousness is incoherent. Even if it existed, it would be absolutely unknowable as any knowing or knowledge is consciousness. It would have no relation to consciousness, because any relation is joining or uniting with consciousness. Accordingly, it would be impossible to even consider, think about, discuss, write about, or point to. If I were being generous, I would say that they may be pointing to subtler and subtler objects of consciousness that are often mistaken for consciousness. For example, the feeling of presence, the feeling I am, the sense of infinite space, etc.

Maybe it is just me but this link is bringing up this topic.

Presence and absence are not consciousness, but states of consciousness. From a Vedantic POV, consciousness is not a state, but is common to all states (much as being is not a thing but is common to all things). Accordingly, when you type "the absence of it is very strange at first" means that it was arising in consciousness. This is the problem with non-traditional teachers. They only have their own experience to draw upon, whereas established traditions have the collective experiences of thousands of high level practitioners.

I'm not sure that qi emission (fa qi) and fajin are the same thing. Fajin as commonly referred to appears to be biomechanical (i.e. dependent on physical structures), whereas qi emission would not be. At some point, many schools decided to focus on the biomechanics and not the qi. I suppose a well rounded Tai Chi school would have both, although it is not something I've really found (although I am not a deep learner in this area). I'm not sure that any traditional, form based martial art is really functional in this day and age anyway, thus the popularity of MMA.

I would recommend checking some of his free stuff out first. Some of his public stuff is straight form the academy, so you can get a taste of it right away. There is a foundations set of videos he has posted. My main issue was with the sheer number of practices and the time involved. Also, there is a lot of moving stuff that I personally don't think you can really do without in-person feedback and adjustments. For example:

I'm still working through his Foundations of Qigong, but if anyone is interested, he is offering a free MCO course: https://damomitchell.com/2020/03/23/microcosmic-orbit/

Interesting video. What he says makes sense to me, but I am no expert on Daoist meditation (although it is congruent with some Daoist methods I have been exposed to). There are some interesting parallels with some of the Buddhist expressions I have learned. I've been told the same thing, but in a Buddhist context. In addition, expressing these signs too openly allows the mind to gin up experiences to cling onto.

I noted before that this is a skill that one can train in daily life. For example, when we get an urge to do something, we can just sit with that urge for a moment before acting. Other ways to expand this tolerance in safe ways include sitting still for longer meditations, various forms of physical exercise, etc. You can also do practices such as giving up the good parking spots and walking, taking cold showers, and so on. I would not say the goal is detachment so much as non-attachment.

Haven't you heard that enlightened people don't dream?

There is a well known mental health principle related to discomfort tolerance. Typically, the higher one's tolerance, the more calm and mental strength the person has. Of course, it must be a soft, open tolerance, rather than a constriction or a hardening. In Ancient Stoic philosophy, this was known as eudaimonia. In Buddhism, of course this is equanimity. This is likely one of the motivating reasons behind the modern (esp in the US) mental health crisis--- the easier life and more comfortable life gets, the less toleration people tend to have to even minor discomforts. It gets even worse when people get medication that removes such discomforts completely and never really get to train their discomfort muscles. Fortunately, this skill can be trained, even in every day, day to day environments, and can be learned by anyone.

How does your Sri Vidya experience stack against your Spring Forest qigong, genital weight lifting, Daoist sexual yoga, and at least two other qi or qigong related systems? That seems like a lot of systems.

There are several problems with video: 1. Videos cannot adjust your posture, and many adjustments are subtle. 2. Videos can't answer your questions, or adapt the practice to you personally. They are by nature generic. You can't ask a video what to do when stuff goes wrong. 3. Videos don't transfer the full panoply of physical and energetic cues. I think videos can be a nice supplement, but never a replacement-- at least not any time soon.

This is an issue many teachers have addressed with Tibetan practices--- relaxing the body, especially when conducting holds and locks. However, many of us due to various reasons tend to tense up, and also push ourselves for some goal, which is problematic.

I have asked many teachers similar questions, and they have replied in line with what @steve has said. I think it makes a difference if you are doing a health type practice or a spiritual type practice. Although in my experience, the healthiest qigong practitioners also do something else (usually physical exercises and/or martial arts). Just keep in mind that time and attention tend to be limited resources (especially if you have or expect to have a family and full time job). Accordingly, it may be worth assessing how much time you actually have to spend on other practices, and whether that time would be better spent on the practices you already have. This is especially the case given the variety and diversity of practices one can encounter in the Tibetan realm. More than likely, after a certain point you end up dropping certain practices due to time/energy. Of course, if you are just starting, then it is a different story. I do think there are different emphases based on the practice and the tradition, or even within the same tradition. So basically, by training up some skills, you may be training down others.

I think the better way to look at it is the experience of God rather than the existence of God (or more often is the case a god). God is typically inferred from a series of experiences that a practitioner has, and I would say these experiences are the same but the interpretations are different. So for example, an experience of limitless consciousness to a Christian may be interpreted as experiencing an external being that is limitless, whereas to a Buddhist it would be the experience of one's mind (of course, this is gross oversimplification).

I live in a decriminalized state, so a lot of people take and swear by medical marijuana for pain, even pain not responsive to conventional medications. Not sure if that’s an option. I’m sure you’re spending a lot of time researching. For meditation, usually the prescription from a Tibetan Buddhist POV is tonglen, compassion practices (ie Chenrezig) or metta meditation. Mingyur Rinpoche has a meditation on pain, but these really depend on the individual. His brother Tsoknyi Rinpoche has a course Fully Being that I found helpful for different kinds of pain. May be worth checking with a traditional Chinese medicine doctor if you haven’t already—- you never know. Asking for help from a higher power. May you find relief from suffering and the causes of suffering.

I'd appreciate it if one of you siddhi folks could inform me of my experience. Shouldn't be too hard, right? Preferably if you bilocate, I'll make you a cup of coffee. It's not either or. It's both and. Study, contemplation, meditation is the Buddhist trifecta. People who are engaging in Buddhist practice should at least be versed in the basics. Siddhis are based, like everything else, on causes and conditions and karma. What gets lost with people who tend to praise siddhis is wisdom, and it is the wisdom that counts from a Buddhist POV. For example, in this Sutta, some one asks how monks can be enlightened without psychic powers. Spoiler: he realized the foolishness of his view. https://suttacentral.net/sn12.70/en/sujato?layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

Hopefully this is a guess and not an expression of a siddhi... See, this is what I mean. This is quite a leap from an online comment to a judgment about an entire system and tradition, which I see as a pattern. Of course, lacking telepathy, this is just my speculation. Maybe it's all just skillful means and I'm not developed enough to see it.

Yes, and unfortunately the stuff that you have written is not born out in the Buddhist sources. In Buddhist practice, there are generally three ways to check knowledge: experience, teacher, and scripture. If teachers are not consistent with Buddhist scripture there's an issue. Historical research suggests that the SE Asian meditative traditions were have now are fairly recent innovations, and trace back to a few extremely ascetic monks in the 1800's due to the pressures of colonization. Of course they think their way is the true way, the Buddha's way, etc. But every Buddhist sect claims that. But there's no reason to accept it, especially if is not supported by the suttas or the commentarial tradition. It's just another story. But the Buddha put forth 84,000 dharma gates for all sorts of individuals. Taking one gate as the one and only gate misses the point. And appealing to siddhis and magic powers--- well, greed is one of the primary elements driving samsara. I don't see how that is especially conducive to attracting spiritual seekers capable of achieving high levels of realization. I do see how it's attractive to people who want power and magic-- i.e. the vast majority of humanity. Beyond that rare person, there are many, many more who can benefit from techniques like the one presented here. People with jobs and families and everyday anxieties. People who are stressed about the economy and COVID. People who might come looking on the web for something to help them get through another day. As you said yourself, you have no problem with the technique. So why trash it?

This is the universal statement: This statement: is not always true. For example, applied thought and sustained thought are typically used for not only access concentration, but the first jhana as well as they are listed as jhanic factors for both Sutta jhana and Visudhamagga jhana. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html In some traditions, it may be true, although it is more typical for a method to be learned before it is dropped in my experience.

Well, if people are interested and listen to the videos, it is fairly clear that these are stepping stones. Saying X is not meditation and saying X is not meditation the way you understand it are two different statements. One of them is put forth as a universal and the other is a qualified statement of opinion. If one wants to have a serious exchange, one should set forth one's definition and the source from which it comes. Of course, if one just wants to argue, carry on.

I think some of his general videos (like HRV) may be more generally applicable, but the more kriya or yogic centered ones may not be. I don't think Daoists are against the third eye, having a correlate in the upper dan tian. However, focusing energy higher in the body can lead to issues (the same goes with Vajrayana).

HRV appears to accelerate quietening my mind, not unlike being on retreat. I've been doing it for 5-10 minutes prior to my regular meditation, and so far is seems to make a substantial difference. I note that in Dr. Gevirtz's video, he says you really only need to do it 10-20 min per day to get good effects (even while, as he does, listening to podcasts! ). Forrest does introduce some reasons why he thinks the old methods may not work as well today as they did hundreds or thousands of years ago. Consider that indoor electricity is only 100-200 years old, much less more modern things such as how the internet and TV has shaped our brains. Even back then, a lot of meditation instructions begin with "go to a secluded place." Anyway, I just thought I'd put it out there in case others might want to fiddle with it also as it is more of an enhancement than a new meditation method altogether (i.e. it's not kriya). Unfortunately, the interview doesn't seem to work.

In addition to stability, there is also the dimension of penetrative depth. I am amazed by the sheer number of objects in increasing subtlety the mind can find and cling to--- mostly because this is what I did. From formed objects to formless ones, subtle ones, feelings and sensations. It is amazing how very deeply ingrained this object orientation is, and how it is reflected at various levels-- for example, as physical tension, energetic blockages, firm mental concepts, etc. Even our eyes are used to either looking at specific objects or scanning for objects rather than resting in a relaxed, open gaze. Which is why in many Buddhist traditions, simply keeping the eyes open, relaxed and not focused on anything is often a first step. There is probably an important intermediate level between 1 and 2--- being undistracted or collected. It is one thing to be completely caught up and swept away mindlessly, and another to have some initial presence even while still being caught up identifying as various objects.

You mean you couldn't undo eons of conditioning in a few conversations? As a neophyte myself, I am always sensitive to the plights of the neophyte. I think Vivekananda describes the mind well as a monkey --- that has gotten drunk--- oh and stung by a scorpion--- and then possessed by a demon. And this was before computers and "smart" phones. It is interesting that Western psychology now has a term for this: cognitive fusion.