forestofclarity

Is this always expressed in the body?

No? I thought it might be interesting to start a topic on the issue of Taoist views of consciousness (i.e., analogous to Yogacara or Mind Only).

Well, ultimately every experience is the mind (at least in my mind!)

Edited: prefer the question

Then what difference does it make whether the decision maker is present or not?

I wonder-- where does unconditioned awareness go when the decision maker appears?

If you think something is black and white, you may wish to revisit some of the classics. There is little to gain from removing the blockages and opening the flesh and channels of the body if one does not do the same thing to the mind. There is active debate in Buddhist communities about jhanas, their type and definition. You will find different sources on this, from the Suttas through the varying Theravada and Mahayana commentaries. So to say this is a well settled matter is a bit premature. I have found that broadening one's base can be quite helpful in illuminating one's dark spots of knowledge. Of course, too much broadening dilutes the practice, so again there is the middle way. At any rate, jhana is usually related to Buddhist practice, and as I have unsuccessfully pointed out before, the Buddhas taught 84,000 dharma gates because their compassion is limitless. If they had taught one gate, as often claimed (typically being one's own gate of course--- odd how the authentic path typically lines up with one's chosen path), then their compassion would not be unlimited. In my experience, I have seen signs in myself and other people who promote the hard paths often have fixed and narrow beliefs about it. This makes sense, because on the hard paths, the mind is often fixed and narrowed in order to gain concentration. A hard belief, when challenged (much like a qi block I would propose) often provokes pain. Similarly, I have found many "hard" practitioners quick to argue but seemingly offended or hurt when challenged--- including me. But there is a price to such concentration, and it ends up closing off the very thing we're looking for in the first place. If it were me, and I learned to emit electric qi, I would be unbothered by online disagreements and challenges. Why? Because I would have the direct experience of the thing in dispute. People can tell me I don't have hands all they like. I can look or feel any time I want and see that they are there. Well, things often vanish when they fail to adapt--- spiritual teachings are no different. If you have to rely on 12 jurors to confirm your path, what good is it? I don't need 12 jurors to tell me what my own name. In fact, if they told me a different name, I would still know the truth. It should be evident in one's own experience. And if that is not good enough, lesser forms of knowledge will not bridge the gap.

Not really. As I stated earlier, its just pixels on the screen. I think your language is strong, but I have no issues with it. I don't really know enough to have an opinion. I'm pretty confident in my teachers, but I'm always willing to learn. I think you sincerely asked why I drew the conclusion I did, so I sincerely shared it. If you have sincerely cultivated what seems to others to be a superpower, and you know its real, who cares what others think? To be honest, I'd rather hear what you and others have to say, which is why I suggested you overlook the people who disagree and share what you think will be helpful. Again, going back to the jhana debate. Why would 10 different people from 10 different schools all develop concentration but have different outcomes? A few reasons: 1. Different bodies/minds/karma. Different people have different capabilities. Similarly, if 10 people went to the same basketball school, I doubt they would all perform at the same level. Not every 1990s Chicago Bull was a Michael Jordan, and most of them were pretty good. 2. Different degrees of training/intensity. Obviously, some one who trains basketball full time is going to be a better player than the person who trains part time on the weekends. But the weekenders are still playing basketball, just at a lower level. In the U.S., there are multiple levels: neighborhood, city, county, State, National, International. They're all playing basketball, just at different levels. 3. Different areas of focus/techniques. Some basketball players are good at dunking, but poor at long shots. Some are the opposites. How can this be with the same people on the same team going through the same training? Well, the short guy is not going to focus on dunking. Mike Patterson has a video showing him taking a sledgehammer to the gut. Does that mean all internal arts people need to be able to do the same? It is the same thing with change blindness. Most people suffer from change blindness, but with training (i.e. learning some concentration and watching impermanence) you can overcome it. Same people, same eyes, why would it be different? Different focus. 4. Different conceptual frameworks. A teacher once said to me, "Some of the wise people of India looked into the ultimate and called it a Self. Some looked and said there was no Self." What gives? Different ways to explain. Etc.

See below. I bolded the parts that I thought led to that conclusion. I'm not saying my mental projections are right or wrong, but this is what they're based on. [snip] [snip]

One of the purposes of this forum is to share our experiences and help others, at least for me. Inevitably, people are going to disagree, and internet forums being what they are, they will be insulting and mean. It can be a good opportunity to work with the emotions that come up, especially since unlike in real life, we can take some time to reflect before responding. I had some similar experiences in the Buddhist world, albeit in a different direction. I concur that we often want to lower the bar to match our experiences, so we can consider ourselves advanced Buddhists or Taoists or whatever. I also had similar experiences in which I thought I was making progress, but my teachers have told me I wasn't. What you say about the dan tian others say about jhanas. That is to say, if you have not reached a specific high point, you aren't really practicing. I found this to be untrue in the Buddhist context, so while I am open the possibility that this is something that can be developed (as siddhis can be developed in deeper states of concentration), I am not convinced that everything short of electric qi emission is nonsense or false. And even false paths can be useful-- I know I've learned a lot by making mistakes and following dead ends. People are working out their various karmas in various ways, nothing wrong with that. For every teacher I've had from which I've learned something useful, there are always people who say that teacher is false or nonsense. Way of the world. I think some here would be interested in hearing your views, even if we don't agree. People might argue or be mean, but who cares? It's just pixels on the internet plus our own mind reacting. Also keep in mind for every person who is involved in these conversations, there is an unknown number of people who read but don't comment. If you believe this information would be useful, you should put it out there in my opinion.

If you were a Buddhist, you would act out of compassion. As a Taoist, I imagine that the actions would just spontaneously arise. And yet, there is not necessarily a contradiction between the two positions. Some teachers have suggested giving it a shot. Lay around and try to do nothing as long as possible. See what happens.

I'm just trying to understand your position here. Is this a doctor thing, or a minimum requirement thing?

Dan tians, channels, etc. are experiential. You can experience them with enough practice. In that regard, they are quite important. Whether they are measurable in a scientific way is not relevant. It is like saying, "Let's not talk about love. Let's call it, oxytocin filling the brain." Or you may say, "I've dated for two years, and I haven't fallen in love. Love doesn't even exist." If you take a microscope and you train it on the brain of a person in love, you may find many bumps and ridges, neurotransmitters and electric signals, etc. but you won't find that sweet, peaceful sense of love that fills the mind and body like nectar. All you find, at best, are correlation with love. The brain does this when we're in love. But finding measurements that correlate to love tells you absolutely nothing. You can run brain scans, but all those spikes and ridges will not tell you what love feels like. The only way to find out about it is to fall in love. Everything else is just conjecture and inference.

I will say, this thread is bringing me back to the Shi Ming thread from the heady days of 2006. I think a lot of these videos look pretty fake, and I am sure most if not of them are. They strike me as personally as inauthentic, as thought he participants are acting. I spent years refining by BS detector by working with criminals, so it has some reliability to it. The kicker to the below thread is when Buddy reveals he had a conversation with the American in the video who confirmed it was not authentic. Thomas Cleary was so impressed that he translated a book written by the person, and exclaimed that the video was an "astounding" demonstration. That is not to say that these things are not possible--- I've already experienced some things with Dwai's school as noted. Claude Levi-Strauss, the famous anthropologist, wrote about the story of Quesalid. Quesalid was a "fake shaman." In other words, he learned some tricks such as hiding arrow heads in his mouth so he could pretend to suck them out of the patient's body. The important twist was, although Quesalid knew it was fake, he actually was able to heal people and became a successful shaman. Part of perception is always subjective--- the Buddhists tell us what we see is based on our karma, so what appears to water to a human would be pus to a preta or nectar to a deva. Human beings are pattern seeking-- we see faces in snack chips as a result of the evolutionary advantages of seeing potentially dangerous patterns where none exist. Some cultures are more inclined to believe extraordinary things with little or no evidence--- Western Tibetan dharma students are a good example of this. This often happens when students are convinced that teachers can read their mind based because they make certain semi-vague statements in their teachings. This is not to say that people don't believe what they say, but you can't always believe what you see. I remain a bit skeptical overall, although I would give @freeform the benefit of the doubt based on his past honesty and apparent substantial increase in knowledge since 2006. I don't know 小梦想 sufficiently to asses his/her credibility. I doubt I will have the opportunity to see this power close any time soon. I've seen enough of the illusory nature of the world to know that Western materialist paradigms are largely inadequate. However, once the videos come out, I have to express my skepticism as well. At the end of the day, I have found that 99% of this stuff is fake (in my experience anyway). A lot of video-type effects can/have been faked--- the "innocent bystander" (aka a "plant") is the oldest con in the book.

I've been involved in a few internal schools, including Dwai's. Most schools are like what you say--- using soft muscle power and ground paths etc. to generate force. I was a qi skeptic before I got "lit up" by Dwai's primary teacher with no physical contact. I felt something going on, and I knew I could push against it or relax. I chose to relax and felt what I can only describe as extremely powerful qi sensations and inner energetic structures in my body. This was the point I knew this stuff wasn't BS. Other people did not necessarily "feel the qi" but they were easily manipulated with little or no contact. One of his other teachers was able to make me feel my center of gravity shift position merely by contacting our wrists. Not everyone had the same experience. I was only there for a short time. I later took some classes with one of his students who had learned the physics but not the qi stuff. A lot of people experience qi-type sensations on Buddhist retreats-- referred to as "wind" in Buddhist terminology. These retreats involve vegetarian diets, lots of relaxation, and developing concentration. I again felt "energy" structures (primarily the lower and upper dan tien, with connective filaments) during these retreat, but is not the main focus. Other Buddhists have similar reports, but again it is not universal. I've been learning qigong type arts again, but unlike prior times, I am having some pretty strong effects. I've spent a lot of time between the time at Dwai's school and now doing Buddhist stuff, which involves a lot of relaxing and joining the mind and body.

@freeform Common, or universal (as per 小梦想)? IIRC, Robert Peng said he couldn't teach it because it had to do with the congenital conditions of his body (could be a misstatement I suppose). Do you think that anyone can feel yang qi when emitted to them, regardless of sensitivity, relaxation, etc.?

Worth repeating. Not just tai chi, but for meditation, etc. I find this is a recurring thread in Taoism. It seems as though the Taoists are saying that if we align ourselves properly, we can just let go and let things unfold spontaneously. It makes sense--- if the Tao moves the whole cosmos, certainly things are going to go the way the Tao goes. How does a person (part of the whole cosmos) set oneself against the cosmic flow? If you follow the method, you will see the result. But you have to follow the method. That is the shortcut. I thought you were enrolled in Damo's course? It is not an overnight thing. You should listen to anshino23. Don't be like the farmer that tried to "help" the corn grow by yanking on it.

Interesting quote from Zhuangzi (Ziporyn trans.): I am still not sure what to make of this Taoist "stillness of the heart." I suppose it is a natural stillness developed over time, rather than a cold indifference or an apathy. I can attest that when I am more aligned, things don't move the heart either-- not big things like my parents dying, but little things like people cutting you off in traffic. So I suppose it is possible. But is it worth it?

Actually, it is the Buddha who makes this distinction, not Western Buddhists. I think it is important to read traditions in their wider context, and condition the yi (to steal a phrase from Damo) by reading the source documents. Right concentration is samma samadhi, the 7th step on the Eightfold Path. Vipassana is the 8th step, samma sati or right mindfulness. You will also see this tracing through various historical sources, including Chan, Tien Tai, Tibetan sources, etc. This is not to say that the two are always or forever separate, but typically they are initially presented in that way. And this is how it is presented in the Pali suttas, so it is clearly not a Western innovation. I think if you look a little more closely at Nan/Bodri's stuff, you will find it in there as well. I think what is important to keep in mind with both dharma and Taoism is the overriding view (in this case, I must unfortunately refer to the conceptual view, which hardly deserves the label "view" at all). In both traditions, there is no fixed, permanent basis upon which to erect one's concepts. In Mahayana Buddhism, everything is empty. In Taoism, the source is mysterious and change is constant. It is said that the Buddha taught 84,000 dharma gates for all the various people, so to reduce everything to one teacher and one teaching is a bit off in my mind. In Taoism, it is said that the flexible tongue lasts until death, whereas the inflexible teeth crack and break. The Tao being formless, the tongue would be closer to it than the teeth, and likewise, I presume that an open flexible mind is closer to the source than one that is not. That is one reason why I am always suspicious of fixed views-- it is not unlike a qi block. When the mind is fixed, it doesn't flow and adapt which is a real problem since everything is flowing and changing constantly. This is one reason I am usually suspicious of "one way" or "only this" statements. You may be surprised that there is no agreed upon definition of samadhi or jhana in Buddhism. There are sutta jhanas, as elaborated in the Pali Suttas. These tend to be softer and easier to attain. There are Visuddhamagga jhanas, based on the ancient commentarial tradition. These jhanas are much more difficult to attain. And the spectrum continues--- some people say it isn't a jhana until it last 15 minutes, 1 hour, 4 hours, 72 hours, a week (I've heard all of these!). This isn't to say that one way is right or wrong, it is to say there are different methods for different people. Now some teachers will say that soft jhanas are insufficient for sustained insight, and other teachers will say that hard jhanas tend to narrow and harden the mind, making insight more difficult. It can be hard to find a good balance based on one's personal karma and potential. I see Master Nan in a way as a sort of world class athlete, perhaps a triathlete. If you only take being a high level triathlete as being "genuine" exercise, then certainly you may look down on professional and Olympic athletes who only focus on one sport. You may also poo poo State champs, and definitely would not look twice at the best swimmer in the county. But you see, that is a narrow definition of "exercise." Quite frankly, even the average Joe or Jane who eats right and works out several times a week is engaging in exercise, and will certainly realize health benefits. Perhaps not the extreme bodily and mental control evidenced by a triathlete, but certainly getting their heart rate up may extend their life. Their mood will likely improve, they will weigh less, and so on. But of course if you are a busy person with a family and a job, and you work out often and watch your diet, you should be fairly happy with your health results. However, if you definition of "exercise" is what a triathlete does, you will spend your life disappointed. Of course, not everyone can be a triathlete, and many people I imagine end up with broken and damaged bodies for the attempt. If you are some one who has access to a great teacher, and you can spend 16 hours a day cultivating extremely high states of concentration, then I say go for it. However, Buddhas and realized beings have infinite compassion, and know that not everyone can achieve this way. That is why there are many methods. If you say there is only one method, or that the dharma is only for the few, then you are denying the limitless compassion of the Buddhas. One of the reasons Tantra arose in India is to assist lay people to achieve insight working with their circumstances. Later on in Tibet, of course, it was monasticized. Many Chan methods developed when Chan monks were unable to practice full time in meditation. Of course, the fruit of practice arises in one's direct experience. When it does, then it is not a matter of book quotes or conceptual debates, you can simply look and see.

@anshino23, hopefully I have addressed at least some of your points above. If not, let me know and I can expand, I am trying and failing not to write a novel here. However, keep in mind I do not see myself as a representative of the Tibetan tradition--- in fact, I am doing Taoist practices because I don't want to spend the time developing further in their system. I cannot do hours of prostrations/mantras/etc but I can do longer periods of tai chi/qigong, etc. Imagine if I come up to you and said "qigong is just waving your arms." In fact, this has been said on this board a number of times. Now, you say "well, that has not been my experience at all." You would not need contact with countless teachers and disciples in genuine lineages to know that what I'm saying is nonsense. You would know because having learned and practiced qigong yourself that it is not "just waving your arms." In fact, you would likely say that my conclusion expresses a fundamental lack of knowledge about qigong. But I say that I have had contact with qigong for a long time, and I know many qigong students, and all they do is wave their arms. Is my conclusion justified by the premises? It is not if there are in fact qigong practitioners who are not "just waving their arms." So it is not a matter of becoming familiar with all practitioners, an impossibility, but a matter of becoming familiar with a few knowledgeable practitioners. One black swan disproves the premise that all swans are white. The problem with most Western students in my experience (including me) is that we simply do not follow the instructions as we are given them. We add, we subtract, we do what we want. Then we are often surprised as the lack of result. In addition, most Westerners I have come across have not been given genuine teachings, and if they do, they don't follow the instructions. Accordingly, of course there are hoards of Western (and probably Eastern, but I don't know) students of Buddhism, Tai Chi, qigong, etc. who are in fact "just waving their arms" or "just imagining pictures." But the branch does not always reflect the root, and to say the root is weak because the branch is weak is not always correct.

Actually, that has not been my experience at all, although my experience is quite limited. In my experience, rigpa is integrated into deity practice, not separate or apart from it. If you were to join Tergar and work through their program from the beginning, you would spend 3-4 developing concentration and insight, 3-4 years developing Mahamudra, and then you learn deity practice. For more, see Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's Dzogchen Deity practice for a good start. I do know that getting advanced teachings from an actual Tibetan master before one has spent years in preliminary practices is very rare. Second, deity practice in my experience works if done properly. If it were a mere visualization exercise, I would not expect it to seemingly manifest tangible, real world results (even completely life changing results). Of course, it is possible that correlation does not mean causation, but for me, the correlation is too strong to be ignored. I suppose this is something people have to discover for themselves. Third, Damo seems focused on jhana and samadhi. Caveat here that I am not speaking about him as a person, but rather I am addressing his comments. Here is a further quote from his FB page: https://www.facebook.com/damomitchellneigong/posts/this-is-absolutely-the-truth-prior-to-the-above-listed-states-a-person-is-traini/2552179198342409/ Jhana and samadhi (depending on how you define it) are usually preliminary practices in Buddhism. Preliminary to what? Vipassana, or insight. Every Buddhist system has this separation. Why? Because jhana and samadhi on their own cannot liberate-- what liberates from a Buddhist POV is knowledge. Jhana allows you to settle the mind (to what degree is open to debate) so that you can then look and see what is going on in your experience. But it is the seeing that frees, not the stopping/stilling/tranquilizing, etc. But the Buddha was pretty clear that jhana alone cannot lead to liberate-- per the Suttas, his jhana mastery did not deliver him from suffering. Additionally, bodily or energetic transformation is no guarantee of insight. From what I have been taught, siddhis are tied to concentration (i.e. samadhi/jhana). So it makes sense that this would be a focus if one is trying to attain siddhis. So does deity practice give you knowledge? It can, because the way deity visualizations are constructed is very similar, if not identical to how the mind creates the world in dreams and in waking life.

So I watched the video. I found his take on Tibetan Buddhism interesting (in a bad way). Around the 29:00 mark, he is talking about people who say visualization works in Tibetan Buddhism. His response (more or less, boldface mine): To say that he is misinformed about something he claims knowledge of (had contract for a long period of time) is a bit of a red flag for me. As Wolfgang Pauli says, he's not even wrong--- because I don't think he honestly knows what he is talking about. It is a bit off-putting that he is so convinced of his point without showing any indication that he has learned anything about it. It sounds like he has heard about it (or had some cursory contact with it, but likely did not put in the time or effort to receive instruction in deity yoga). Deity yoga in Tibetan Buddhism is obviously a bit complicated, with general and special creation and completion stages depending on the specific vehicle. He is ignoring the fact that concentrating on deities and their environment develops shamatha, or concentration, and that building and dissolving detailed worlds can give one insight into the nature of all perceptions (i.e. vipassana). It also does contain stillness parts to it, so it is unclear where he is getting his information. But it strikes me as more than a bit arrogant to simply wave it all off as picturing deities. I'm sure others here can explain it better, I did not take to deity yoga personally. But I know this is a personal issue with me, and not a failure of the practice. Dalai Lama, who's own practice is centered around deity yoga, is a beginner? Um... ok...

Any insight on the theory behind it, and why it works or it dangerous?

Nice description of Ting. That makes perfect sense. Do they work at cross purposes? Or do they come together at some point? There's a similar debate in Buddhism, between "hard" (i.e. Visuddhimagga jhanas) and "soft" jhanas (i.e. Sutta jhanas). It actually goes beyond Theravada, because it also comes up in Mahamudra and Dzogchen. From my view of a Taoist perspective, the soft focus makes more sense since you're leaving room for wu wei and spontaneous arising. I like how Damo says you don't have to worry about feeling the right thing, it will automatically come up on its own.

I think the point is, if you only sink to the lower dantian, you won't open the legs. I appreciate the links: love the Tai Chi principles. Great! I will watch it today.