RyanO

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful responses. Some points to clarify: If I am going to set out on a path, I want to look at the end and see if that is something that I want. So if I were to follow this particular path, to make it to the end there are some commitments I would need to make in the form of vows. The precepts, taking refuge, the Bodhisattva vow, and in particular Samaya vows in the Vajrayana stage. And breaking them, even by simply moving on to a different path, is very bad form. This is something that I take seriously, which is why I think I would have a hard time accepting it. Sebastian, you're experience is certainly similar to mine. In fact, what got me thinking about Vajrayana again is exactly Ray's Mahamudra program you mention. I explored it and notice the same thing you did about it being a teaser for the real experience. So naturally I thought, why not go for the real thing? At the same time, I think I would find it hard to accept the more traditional aspects of this path, as you point out. I also have a hard time accepting that in order to experience true formlessness, I need a transmission from a teacher. I think this could be a slippery slope to thinking that my way is the best way. I find myself drawn to the perennial philosophy because I feel in my heart that there is truth in all the mysticisms of the world, and with this approach I feel more of a connection to the whole of humanity. So I think I will take your and other's advice and explore other aspects of Buddhism that don't require these same commitments. I am interested in Ajahn Brahm's approach to anapanasati. I like that he teaches not to focus on a particular spot with the breath, this is something that I have found works for me. Does anyone have experience with his teachings?

I'm enjoying a cup of delicious Miso soup right now, and thought I'd start a thread as an homage to this truly divine food.

Hello Bums! For my first post I would like to bring up the topic of Primordial Qigong, specifically as taught by Michael Winn: http://www.taichi-enlightenment.com/ Anyone practice this? How do you like it? How does it relate to alchemy? Any perceived benefits? I am actually attending his workshop this weekend in Asheville as I stated in my lobby intro. Will it be easy for me to learn over a weekend without previous exposure? I am sure I will learn what I want to know at the workshop. For now, I am just curious if anyone practices it and what they think of it. I am attracted to it for various reasons. From what I've read it has a ritualistic/ ceremonial aspect. I've done a little research into Western alchemy, and a lot of magickians practice the Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram regularly for protection and aura cleansing. A key component of this is the ritualistic intent. It seems like some Qigong forms lack this aspect. While I know its not directly comparable, does it make sense to view Primordial Qigong as the Taoist equilavent of the LBRP? Additionally, from what I've read about PQ, it seems to have the same relation to alchemy as the Inner Smile (in that it cultivates yuan chi). So does it make sense to view it as the Qigong manifestation of the Inner Smile? Also, anyone practice a difference but similar form? Again, I'm sure I will learn all I need this weekend, but I'm curious to see what you bums have to say. Peace! -Ryan

Flowing hands, You might be right about my experiences, that it is all mental. This would actually be a correct approach in Buddhism, but it seems you don't have much respect for that religion. Despite what you say, quite a bit of suffering on my part has been relieved through meditating on Kuan Yin. Even if this is all from myself, I'm sure the 'real' Kuan Yin would approve. That you claim to have been taught by immortals and commune with the 'real' being Kuan Yin I of course find fascinating. From what I can see so do many on this board, some being more skeptical of your claims. It's hard for me to say either way. You surely speak with great confidence: maybe this is a trait required by shamans. If everything you say is true, I would still encourage you to be a little more tactful in your dialogue. People will naturally be very skeptical of your fantastic claims and you have to adjust for that. Anyways, best to you.

I have been touting the benefits of the Inner Smile on this board for years. It has so many applications. The biggest for me has been applying it to fears and anxiety. It is also great for guilt and any feelings of unworthiness or inferiority. As such it helps to assuage feelings of not being spiritually 'advanced' enough (whatever that means). Great thread!

My experience, besides what I've heard or read, is that the Lotus Sutra is correct when it says Kuan Yin will always come when called. By this I mean I can feel her presence. My understanding is a little different than yours concerning the actions of gods or immortals. I cannot believe that Kuan Yin would sit back to abide by wu wei when confronted with the suffering of another, especially in cases of extreme abuse. Rather, I believe she is limited in her ability to help such beings, perhaps because of the laws of reality inhibit her power to intervene. Maybe this is saying something similar to you, but I think it is important distinction. If a human who is indifferent when confronted with suffering is deemed cold-hearted, a god would be much more so. Regarding the statues, perhaps I will get them blessed if I ever get the chance. Until then, I'll take the risk.

double post. might as well use this space to say I wish everyone who reads this ultimate happiness and freedom from suffering! universal love to all! that means you

Nice thread Harmonious. A good counterpoint to interpretations such as the following: http://www.tao.org/tao.html#4 Therefore, Lao Tzu insists "the Sage is unkind," urging the Taoist to avoid the Siren call of Universal Love and instead embrace a mindset of harsh indifference towards all but a few loved ones. Enlightened self-interest would be the best way to describe this principle to modern sensibilities. To me this seems quite un-enlightened.

flowing hands and Walker, Since you two seem more learned/advanced than me what I have to say might be moot. But it seems like your views are old world and superstitious. I say this having statues of Kuan Yin and Buddha all over my place and big beautiful statues of the Three Pure Ones on my mantle, and have not had any negative experiences with ghosts. In fact, the presence of these statues has served to banish such unwanted influences. Any being whose presence would require a holy man to beg for it, and any being that requires daily supplication, are not beings I would want to attract anyway. Ch. 25 of the Lotus Sutra says that Kuan Yin will aid anyone who calls on her with sincerity. Her compassion is bestowed as much on the humble sinner as the righteous holy man. The only blessing my statues have received is my own heartfelt appreciation. I admit my ignorance of spiritual matters. But if having statues of divinity in my place makes me susceptible to ghosts and sickness, but also serves as the faintest reminder of my highest destiny as a spiritual being, then I would gladly make such sacrifices as symbols of my devotion.

Interesting then that you view Buddhist enlightenment the way you do, as that seems a more direct path to "getting off the wheel" than immortality. Not that I think it's any better, just different. What do you think the difference is between 'snuffing out the yang shen' and fusing yin and yang shens? According to your goals, why do you prefer the latter?

Interesting MPG. My question I've been pondering is, what is the use of retaining your humanity after you die? I mean in an ultimate sense. Sure it sounds preferable, but is there a higher purpose beyond 'selfish' reasons? I'm also trying to figure out what exactly it means, since we are not who we think we are anyway. What is this 'human self' that survives. It seems like we would become radically different to the point where we wouldn't be the same entity. The only thing that seem to link us to our human self would be our memories. But amnesia has been shown to be a biological issue, so with brain death, wouldn't memories cease as well? Still surfing the wave between science and spirituality...

Cool idea, I have thought something similar.

Cool thanks

cool, could you name specific sources? your description sounds similar but not the same as what I know about Taoist immortality (basically creating a yang shen rather than fusing an already existing yang spirit with yin spirit), but perhaps it is the same just a different take.

sounds like Krauss is saying there will come a time when that's not happening

Very thought-provoking ideas. Did you come up with this yourself or learn it somewhere? It sounds very similar to binary soul doctrine: http://www.amazon.com/The-Lost-Secret-Death-Afterlife/dp/1571743243 ( apparently in this instance the author is a Christian and suggests salvation is allowing Jesus to do the 'fusing' for you)

In the video, Krauss says that this universe is the most unlikely of places to support life because it will all eventually become cold, dead and lifeless, mostly empty space. But then he says that empty space has a ton of energy (potential or dark matter or something, not sure) and is where everything comes from. These seem like two contradictory ideas, am I missing something?

Aaron, I understand and appreciate that you feel strongly about this, and agree with the spirit behind your approach, just maybe not some of the details. We can both agree to disagree about these aspects. However, I did want to clarify my point about freedom from "pleasure/addiction cycles as a source of happiness", which you wrongly misinterpreted as "freeing ourselves from pleasure". I have two points: 1) There are different degrees of pleasure. I believe one purpose of this life is to find sources of pleasure that are long lasting and beneficial to our health. And grasping for certain pleasures, drugs for instance, inhibit our ability to experience other more satisfying pleasures and ultimately create suffering. So my point was not that pleasure itself is bad, but the craving for certain harmful and addictive pleasures is bad. And it seems we disagree on the role masturbation plays in achieving well-being. 2) Also, I did not say we should be free from pleasure, I said we should be free from cycles of pleasure as sources of happiness. I agree that being free from pleasure is not a healthy goal, as we have a body and this body needs to know what's good for it. But, I believe that when pleasure seeking itself becomes the foundation of one's happiness, this creates more suffering in the long run, because there is no litmus for determining healthy from unhealthy pleasure. Rather, obtaining happiness from meaning will guide to us to what pleasures are fruitful and which one's are harmful. With that in mind, again, we simply disagree about the benefits/harm of masturbation. To each their own. I jumped in this thread because I wanted to give my personal experience. There are things that I agree with you on and things I don't agree, all good. Best to you, -Ryan

Aaron, Again I agree that guilt over sexual issues is a problem. It is really only useful in that it helps us change our behavior to our benefit. You say masturbation isn't harmful, but then you say compulsive masturbation is. So where is the line drawn? As far as evidence goes, I think Scotty's sources are right on. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that confirms that masturbation can cause ED and premature ejaculation, thus being harmful. As far as this topic goes, I don't think Taoism is about indulging in our animal instincts. The fact that monkeys masturbate doesn't exactly help your argument. They also rape and throw feces at each other. Human nature is different than monkey nature (plus I've heard that monkeys only masturbate in captivity). We have a natural pull toward spiritual life, and spiritual life is in part about becoming free from pleasure/addiction cycles as a source of happiness. This mystical realization then got skewed into religious dogma. But at it's core, it's a natural process.

I'll go ahead and add my thoughts to this topic. There seems to be a lot of angles here. Aaron, I grew up in secular household with older siblings and plenty of access to porn. I was not taught that sex was sinful, bad, or whatever. Whenever it was mentioned, it was seen positively. Probably too positively. I began masturbating to pornography frequently, and this eventually affected my relationship with girls. I never felt horny around them and this was obviously frustrating and disturbing. I consoled myself with more masturbation and this created a vicious cycle. My point is that I created this cycle not from religious guilt but from access to pornography and following my resulting natural impulses. And I think your crusade against religions is not applicable for mainstream society in this day and age. Most young men are not suffering from their religions but from internet pornography. I agree with your views on religion but I don't see this as the big issue with regard to sexuality. If young guys were taught that ejaculating too much might be harmful they would be better for it, I wish I had been. Now, I am not celibate, but I don't ejaculate nearly as much as I used to, and feel much better for it. I have learned that chasing ejaculations is not a path to sexual fulfillment, and in fact inhibits it. Rather, I have found much more lasting bliss by opening my heart. Semen retention for alchemy is a huge topic of which I am very much a beginner. But I can say that my energy levels increase when I haven't ejaculated for a couple days. Longest I have gone is 50 days and felt great during this time. So I think there may be something to the jing/qi/shen transformation. Final point, I think your arguments might be true for the middle ages and some fundamentalists, but I don't think they are as applicable to modern secular folk. I think you're missing the boat when you see discussion of semen retention as being driven by some kind of guilt.

Might as well have your discussion here, I for one am interested in this topic and your thoughts as well. I am wondering what you think the ultimate purpose of spiritual cultivation is, specifically with regard to the fact that if spirit is biological, what happens to it after death? Do you think this spirit survives the death of the physical body? If so, do you think non-cultivators survive death? If not, why cultivate? Just some thoughts.

I recently started running as well. I went from nothing to running 2.5 miles. Surprisingly went ok, except I was sore and a few days later my hip was really bothering me. Wasn't sure why at first then I realized the culprit was most likely running. I feel like my form is ok, just need to ease into it a little more to condition everything. It's not just the cardio system that needs to build up. So with in mind I am following the couch to 5k program now, which is great if you are just starting out: http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/2/2_3/181.shtml Good luck!

While I know the spirit of the original post was not focused on this specific issue and was more about the problem of pop media in general, I thought I'd offer a specific example of one of the sources I was describing above. This is Stephen Elliot's book on wuji standing, where he describes heaven (which he interprets as air) water, earth, and fire as the alchemical agents of the bagua. Whether this is traditional or not, the book is a good and serious treatment of the subject: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/topic/20788-new-book-wuji-qi-gong/page__p__295831__fromsearch__1entry295831 So it may be that Avatar is not blasphemous, but innovative.

Great reply, thanks!