forestofclarity

I don't know why people think that condescending comments and personal insults will make their point. I think you've done pretty well in the face of it. Typically, insults and ad hominems come when a person is unable to articulate their reasons behind their position. But the thing you are forgetting is homeostasis. Homeostasis means your body/mind adapts to specific conditions. For example, if you sit on the couch all day eating junk food, your body and mind is going to adapt to that. So when you put down the junk food or try to exercise, there is an entire echo system of physical and mental habits that will rise up to resist you. In this case, you will often face less physical and mental resistance short term if you remain as you are: laying on the couch eating bad food. Accordingly, what may feel right or natural is not right or natural-- it is just how the body/mind has adapted. I've seen this time and again in various body arts classes, and of course, in myself. The teacher will show a posture, and everyone inevitably adapts the posture to match their own physical/mental habits. They end up distorting the posture, which is why you need the teacher to provide you feedback. This is why you need an element of trust--- it may "feel" wrong for some time, but once you have overcome your poor prior habits, you find how much better off you are. If you've ever quit an addictive substance, you will know exactly what I mean.

The Tibetans have a very rich inner body tradition, but it is described differently. They have quite a bit of body based practices, contrary to some opinions. There you would have prana, bindus, and nadis, 5 chakras that are correlated with the 5 skandhas, etc. There is also tummo, various forms of yoga, and all manner of practices. It is not uncommon for practitioners to remain in a state of suspended death for anywhere from an hour to several days or weeks (tukdam). More rare is the reported "rainbow body." Zen and Theravada also have some inner body work, but you typically have to look a bit harder.

Actually, your description here is not far off from what I have experienced via Buddhism. I put "habitual thinking mind" because in Buddhist practice I am familiar with, we do use the mind in other ways. One easy example is in Theravada practice, you develop concentration by focusing on the breath, and then go through your body bit by bit looking to see if there is anything permanent, satisfactory, or a self. In certain Tibetan Buddhist circles, there are similar meditations that are preparatory, and perhaps a series of experiential "pointing out" instructions and practices. Zen has koans, not unlike what you presented above. They have similarities, but often work differently with different emphases and areas of focus. A huge obstacle in my mind is that people often do not actually perform any experiential inquiry, because they think they already have or have heard the answer. I came across a quote the other day that I can no longer find--- it said that there must be emptiness before the Tao can gift its benevolence. Relaxing, opening, not directing--- these seem to be the keys.

For me, my mind has formed strong habits of grasping. With your question, the first part (When you try to find/identify who you are, in a fraction of a second, without thinking) is an invitation to set aside thoughts and take a look. But the second part, (what do you get?) is an open invitation for the habitual thinking mind to get right back involved. The thinking mind doesn't even have to really be invited, it loves to get involved, and of course it loves to pretend it is not involved. Even worse, the thinking mind likes to make "thought images" of experiences, and it likes to pull those out either as a replacement for, or a map for further experiences. For example, let's say we were watching a sunset, and I was facing East. You say, look over here to the West. I turn around and see the sunset. Then I may start mentally talking about the sunset (oh those colors are so pretty! Reminds me of fire. Like fiery sunsets when I was a kid. Or a dragon. Puff the magic dragon. Whatever happened to that show? I used to watch it all the time. I wonder what's on TV now. I wish I was at home watching). Or I may make a mental image of the sunset. The colors are just so due to the clouds, the mountains, and so on. I will then use this image either to overlay on future sunsets I see. Perhaps I will not even see the sunset, but only this mental image, or I may see the sunset with the mental image flickering on top of it like an overlay. Perhaps in future sunsets, I will ignore the differences, and only focus the similarities, thereby molding present experience into line with past (reconstructed) memory. Maybe I won't even turn West, I will see the licks of crimson in the east, compare it to my mental image, and say "close enough. I AM seeing the sunset directly." Even worse, many people aren't even aware of this ongoing mental activity. Now replace the sunset with something more subtle or formless (like awareness), and it gets much, much worse (in my experience). Of course, the habits can be reduced with time and practice (Thankfully! The habitual thinking mind is exhausting once one is aware of it!). But the habits can be quite deep, and very subtle.

It is hard not to grasp at words--- same with phenomenon. I guess that is why they call it pointing rather than telling. For me, it is a process of continual refinement. I enjoy the idea of refinement. In Tibetan, nang-jang--- refining perceptions. I suppose in Taoism I might call this "daily loss." It reminds me on when I first started tai chi, and I was told to relax. "I am relaxed!" I said. And I was compared to my normal mode of complete tension. But not really relaxed. And then I found what I thought was relaxed then wasn't really relaxed. And so on, as relaxation becomes more refined, what looked previously like relaxation had a tremendous amount of tension. I am sure that what I currently call "relaxation" will be further refined. Right now, the crux of my practice is working a certain kind of grasping called "needing to stabilize." That is what I am playing with here.

Oh no, I see the trap there! The head is a dragon, but the tail is a snake.

I have been looking for the self for a very long time. For me, phenomenon appear in the five basic types that also appear to our senses --- colors, sounds, feelings, etc. I have not experienced phenomenon that does not have one or some combination of these. Accordingly, I have encountered these aspects of what I may label a self--- a voice in the head (sound), thoughts (for me, thoughts are usually a combination of pictures (color) and feelings), or a feeling of self, i.e. a "sense of self." But I have never found a self behind these. The key for me is the feeling. The feeling of self. And all of these flicker constantly. So basically the illusion is that I "feel" that I am something that I experience-- but how could that be the case? It would be like saying the eye is the table. Anyway, just thinking aloud.

I mean, I don't see how unconditioned awareness would just vanish because conditioned phenomenon is arising. It seems to me that the problem is focusing on the phenomenon rather than its presence or absence, or that’s how I’ve been instructed. I may be wrong.

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.