forestofclarity

46 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

Do you not see the issue of closed mindedness and cynicism with the Fajin project?

 

  I mean sure, argue away if you dont think its a fighting thing, but these folk attack teachers no stop without ever having seen them. 

No more than what I see here, in spiritual communities, or even within my own mind. But they are not, as far as I know, spiritual practitioners. But cynicism can be turned into an agent of the path, as with certain forms of Buddhism. In this case, maybe they are not cynical enough (i.e. questioning their own beliefs about materialism, for instance). 

47 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

You could literally prove this to yourself within a few weeks of decent training if you wanted to

I don't think that is true, at least not in my experience and the experience of people I've interacted with (unless one counts suggestion, which I do not). For some, perhaps, depending on one's karmic propensities--- recall about universalizing one's personal experience. I think it is better to let the potential unfold rather than try to cultivate some specific end from a limited POV.

But even if I could fajin energy at a distance or electric qi some one, I doubt I would do it at this stage. 

2 hours ago, dwai said:

These people become vehement and belligerent skeptics (the FB group called “Fajin project” has many such worthies). 

Personally, I don't blame them. I tend to be skeptical and usually my skepticism is not disappointed. Also, there tends to be a lot of fraud, gullibility, truth stretching, money grabbing, etc. which is fairly rampant in this realm (a lot of demos, for example, seem to purposely confuse the use of leverage with the use of internal power). If I hadn't experienced it myself, in an impromptu situations, I wouldn't have believed it either. 

8 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

You guessed right!

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. 

1 hour ago, Shadow_self said:

However, that was also what I was referring to in regard to the value of an opinion.

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. 

1 hour ago, Shadow_self said:

I do question just  how valuable an opinion is however.

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.

2 hours ago, parsival said:

no access to a teacher of any tradition

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

56 minutes ago, dwai said:

This needs to be re-iterated - that's why these precepts are present in almost all spiritual traditions - one has to live by these until it becomes natural 

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. 

57 minutes ago, Sahaja said:

 followed the path of addition which makes qi a more likely starting point.

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. 

On 8/6/2024 at 7:52 PM, Neirong said:

One camp advocates for the power of a sudden realization, an insight into a 'noble truth,' as the ultimate goal of spiritual development. They believe that once this insight is achieved, the journey is complete. The other camp, however, emphasizes the importance of continuous training and practice.

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. 

23 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

More supremely unpopular work by Crumb

I thought this one was the best:

9 hours ago, tao.te.kat said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rangtong_and_shentong

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: 

Quote

Whereas Rangtong is accessible though both logical analysis and meditation experience Shentong is only accessible through meditation experience. It is Reality as revealed to the Yogi and, at a verbal level, can only be taught through intimation, imagery, symbols and so forth.

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. 

On 8/1/2024 at 4:18 AM, tao.te.kat said:

The unorthodox but tolerated Shentong approach says that there's something, a substrate, an essence of somekind, with is devoid of any characteristic of any skandha, but it's there and it's permanent. Shentong means "other emptiness" because of that. So this can be seen as some form of Atta, as long as one understand that is devoid of any characteristic and functioning. It's more like the energy that moves us (not being really that), Sometimes it's been used the example of a lion made of gold. So gold really exists as such in that case. While for Rangtong gold will be also composed and impermanent.

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. 

15 hours ago, dwai said:

Maybe they are not incomplete but different approaches required for different types of people? 

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. 

15 hours ago, dwai said:

Towards that end, I found that Ming is more appropriate for modern practitioners as preparatory steps for Xing work.

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. 

21 hours ago, Sahaja said:

Important point is to realize, wherever you are, there is much yet to learn so you don’t glass ceiling yourself by feeling you “finally get it”. Better to be in the “ I know I don’t know state.” 

YES

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

9 hours ago, dwai said:

My experiences point to something beyond the physical.

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). 

9 hours ago, dwai said:

It’s like how we need some kind of mantra or ritual to facilitate a spiritual practice

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. 

3 hours ago, tao.te.kat said:

The unorthodox but tolerated Shentong approach says that there's something, a substrate, an essence of somekind, with is devoid of any characteristic of any skandha, but it's there and it's permanent.

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. 

4 hours ago, dwai said:

One “method”

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? 

6 hours ago, Chang dao ling said:

Why did he refused to answer?

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. 

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

 

That was one of those questions that he did not answer.

Yes, here is one sutta: 

https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

Quote

 

“Sir, why didn’t you answer Vacchagotta’s question?”

 

“Ānanda, when Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’ I would have been siding with the ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists.

 

When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self survives, if I had answered that ‘the self survives’ would that help give rise to the knowledge that all things are not-self?”

 

“No, sir.”

 

“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not survive, if I had answered that ‘the self does not survive’, Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking: ‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer survives.’”

 

More questions not answered:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.008.than.html

12 hours ago, Chang dao ling said:

Hi, what did buddha teach about soul? I know buddha teach no self . Here I believe self means soul. So buddha taught there is no soul? If there is no soul who is taking reincarnation? Who is suffering?

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. 

13 hours ago, snowymountains said:

It feels like nature conspired so that some info, that we wouldn't had otherwise beer aware of, reached us and now it's up to us to weed which info was that from everything we heard yesterday.

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. 

11 hours ago, dwai said:

What is the thought process of it manifesting as anxiety? I can see anxiety manifesting in the absence of it or if it suddenly becomes inaccessible. Is that what you mean?  

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. 

On 7/24/2024 at 6:21 PM, dwai said:

Oh, but I don’t think it is non-omnipresent

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. 

8 minutes ago, Apech said:

Yet high IQ people have less children - so is it not a route to extinction??

This is the exact plot of Mike Judge's Idiocracy.