forestofclarity

Interestingly, I've been "fajined" by at least two people. One felt very physical, both to me and the person performing it. It felt like the person was using leverage and muscular elasticity to "snap" me back into the wall. Earl Grey posted a video some years ago and it was just like that. This person learned it outside of Dwai's school. The other felt very energetic, again to both giver and receiver. This one felt like a ball expanding and propelling me up and back into the air (the technique was press, which I thought was a BS move). I do think there is a muscular/physical leverage type of fajin, but there is also something completely different. This person was within Dwai's school. I imagine that a well developed practitioner would be able to do both, but it is theoretical to me since I've not really developed much in CIMA past some basic body connecting/leverage using.

I would suggest that EVERYTHING has value. Each thought, feeling, arising, being, non-beings is an expression of the greater totality. And as you may know, as an experienced practitioner, a lot of less experienced practitioners may (improperly) take such statements to mean that they have no value, or are somehow diminished, when in fact their value is immeasurable.

Unfortunately, most of us are locked into a limited view, and tend to try to universalize our limited view (standard ego-type process or samskara). Who is to say what is valuable in the totality in the long run over years or lifetimes? Struggling through ignorance, making mistakes, forming wrong views and going down side paths builds discernment, in my (limited) experience. The path tends to be broader than we often think.

A lot of access is available online these days, FWIW.

One further issue is that people seem to confuse deeper, unconscious conditioning for spontaneous, true action arising from the totality. I think modern people especially underestimate the depth and power of the alaya/unconscious.

Changed name to forestofclarity. Do not, however, expect more "clarity" from my posts.

Anything to elaborate on this point? Offhand, it seems to me that unless the acquired mind is sufficiently attenuated, adding more energy to the total individual system would just strengthen it.

I don't know if people are familiar, but this is kind of a big deal especially in Korean and Chinese Zen. While there are schools with almost nearly every permutation (sudden training, sudden enlightenment to gradual training, gradual enlightenment) the most commonly accepted version is sudden enlightenment, gradual training (although I would argue, gradual training, sudden enlightenment, more gradual training). There is a paradox at play, and the concepts (of course) cannot fully resolve it. I actually really think the Daoist metaphor is apt. If you are going to grow a flower, you need the right foundation: soil, air, water, sunlight, etc. Which doesn't mean that flowers only grow in well tended gardens, but a well tended garden is more likely to support flowers. In this case, the garden would be prepared--- weeds pulled, soil tilled, water channels provided, etc. Then, also very important, you need the right seed. One cannot grow a sunflower with an apple seed, for example. Then finally, once planted, additional gardening is necessary so that the seed blossoms on its own accord.

I thought this one was the best:

I don't consider Wikipedia to be authoritative in terms of spirituality, so I doubt we will be able to have a fruitful discussion. However, in that wikipedia article, the source, Lama Hookham in the same work writes: This is all throughout the non-wikipedia shentong literature and teachings. Your posts have made several errors in my view. One is to separate and oppose rangtong and shentong. The Jonangpas as far as I know study rangtong first to help clear the mind of fixation and conceptual elaboration, but I don't know many Jonangpas. The other is to turn Buddhanature as a thing (also a common error in Vedanta, fwiw). The third is deny that Buddhanature has function. I don't agree Buddhanature is a something, and or that there is no function. You might be thinking of samkhya and importing it into Buddhism without fully understanding the context. The acquired mind seems that it simply cannot conceive of objectlessness, so it is constantly supplying a steady stream of objects to fill that mental habit. If some one wants to learn more about this, there are plenty of works outside of wikipedia (Khenchen Thrangu, Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso, Jamgon Kongtrul, Ju Mipham Rinpoches, Karmapa III for example). However, there is no substitute for guidance under an experienced teacher.

You could say that, but there is a reason I typically don't. Many other spiritual traditions have an emphasis or focus on wisdom. However, many Daoist teachings have power teachings that aren't necessarily taught in conjunction with wisdom teachings. It seems to me that most people go to Daoist teachings (at least in the West) for health/healing or martial power, and only very few for wisdom. I've met many people who attend these teachings who enjoy real world fighting for instance. Many people do this with yoga and pranayama also. The issue is that increased power without increased wisdom seems to reinforce the acquired mind. Wisdom without power may not be as effective, but it isn't as damaging. That is fairly classic. The Dzogchen (and to some extent the Chan/Zen) tradition goes in the opposite direction. As the world degenerates, more traditional techniques stop working, so methods must be simpler and more direct. This is one reason why teachings which would typically be whispered from mouth to ear through a tube are now widely available. However, it can be too direct and often requires a lot of foundational work anyway. And of course it requires a teacher who understands what is being pointed out, which according to various commentaries is always "as rare as daytime stars." It is really difficult in my experience to find a capable Daoist spiritual teacher. I suppose they say it is a matter of destiny. YES

I don't mean to jinx it, but may I say that this has been such a nice, pragmatic discussion so far?

I agree. However, in my experience, it is usually taught without the physical parts. I think the physicalists go too far in denying the non-physical elements, but the vast majority of non-physicalists don't teach the physical parts at all (leading me to believe they never learned it or are withholding it). However, I would say 99% of all recorded qi type tricks are reducible physically (in part because the non-physical stuff wouldn't be apparent on film I would think, and must be experienced personally). I agree that this applies broadly. Here is my current, no doubt flawed and limited understanding: Practices can be understood as a matter of substance (what we're working with) and function (the method used). The substances are typically the three treasures, but can be pre- or post-heaven, and post-heaven can vary from more subtle to more gross. The functions are basically those with more you wei or more wu wei. Nearly everyone works with post-heaven treasures of some level, because it is difficult to fully penetrate to the essence. Toward one end, we have those who work with the grossest treasures and specific methods. These are the physicalists--- working primarily with the body--- modern Westerners for instance. Then we have those roughly classified (again, using post-heaven terminology) as working ming to xing. These folks usually say only the method of their school works, etc. Sometimes they ignore or deny more subtle practices. This would be the guest within the guest stage, which is where most of us start. On the other end, we have people who claim to focus on more wu wei methods, and will criticize others for using you wei methods (i.e. no visualization). This is the xing to ming group. However, they also seem to be using post-heavenly treasures and you wei methods, even if less gross (attention instead of visualization, for instance). They will say that the other group is ineffective. However, to be truly effective, then one would need to at least be at the host within the guest stage, which means one has seen the nature so to speak. Both poles seem incomplete, and merely at ends of a spectrum (which is ironic given the context). Both of them can be harmful is incorrectly practiced (if one stands for long periods without proper alignment leading to bodily harm, or if one meditates improperly leading to mental illness). There is a similar pattern in Chan/Zen as well.

This is a common but erroneous view, typically propagated by schools who don't like shentong. Shentong does not establish any such thing. Rather, what shentong is pointing to is that when you let go of everything, you're not stuck in an empty blankness. There is no contradiction IME.

Here's a question. There is a cadre of folks who claim that much (or all) of this is physical. They talk about aligning the structure, leveraging the ground, etc. I've found I can reproduce some "qi" tricks this way--- such as grounding a mobile chair into the floor. There is another cadre of folks who state that post-heavenly intention is unnecessary, and potentially distorting. They say that when properly connected, the inner energies align on their own. Wouldn't a happy medium be to adopt the physical alignments/techniques, relax and open, connect to the essence of mind, and just let it unfold?

I think you just go back to the 4 Noble Truths. The cause of suffering is tanha, thirst, craving, etc. The cessation of suffering is to end this thirst. This thirst leads to clinging (upadana), or fuel for the whole cycle of suffering. Buddhism in a nutshell is radical non-clinging. It is letting go, not finding something better to cling to. This is a key point many people apparently miss. If you grab something with you hand, forming a fist, and now you can't move freely, the solution is not to grab onto something brighter, cleaner or better. You need to let go of everything in order to move freely. People often seem to think that if they let go, everything will fall apart--- as though the thirsting/grasping/clinging is somehow keeping the world together.

Yes, here is one sutta: https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin More questions not answered: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.008.than.html

Basically, in the suttas, the summation is that all phenomenon (dhamma) or skandhas are not self (anatta). https://suttacentral.net/sn22.90/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin There is a dispute in SE Asian Theravada with some who adhere to suttas, some who adhere to Abhidhamma, and the Thai forest tradition. One view: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html Some counter-arguments here: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/not-self-and-no-self-and-possibly-non-self-totally-different/4902 If one wants to go beyond a merely intellectual view, then inevitably one would have to spend time in practice.

Sounds like a beautiful experience. I'd suggest nothing wrong with savoring the wonder and the opening, and seeing how it unfolds. The acquired mind wants to name and frame everything into a fixed story IME.

I think it is a variation of a basic technique that occurs over and over in Tantric-type traditions. Basically, it is allowing the grosser to change into the more subtle. There are all types of different names: divinizing, transmuting, refining, liberating, digesting, spiritualizing, raising, etc. From a Western alchemical view, however, one might say that needs gold to transmute base metals into gold, so these popularized methods is more transmuting iron into copper in my opinion.

I would say that anxiety is a natural manifestation of the innate potential of mind when it is ignorant of its own nature. Similarly, tranquility is a natural manifestation of the innate potential of mind when it recognizes its own nature.

I think the source is omnipresent, but not necessarily the manifestation. I am tempted to go a step further and say, the source is omnipresent, but may manifest as either a fundamental tranquility or anxiety, depending on which way it goes.

From the POV of certain spiritual traditions, without ignorance (i.e. stupidity) we wouldn't have all the wondrous manifestations around us: Italian cappuccinos, golden doodles, or hand holding. This is the exact plot of Mike Judge's Idiocracy.

I think this is something one has to unfortunately learn oneself. I remember in the early days of the Tao Bums the members were always on the lookout for the latest, greatest, easiest, and most powerful paths. Over time, it seems that most members who have developed insight seem to have ended up in more traditional systems. Others who didn't seem to have burned up or burned out. But I think we need to take a broader view of the path. A broader view includes side paths, false starts, errors, and just living life. These things are not a waste of time, but a part of a larger movement toward (in my opinion) inevitable realization. As the Gita notes, no effort is ever wasted.

Swami S recently did a presentation on enlightenment recently, and made an important distinction between an initial realization and full blown enlightenment. The first 28 minutes covers this.