C T

Can be a side effect, but not exclusively one. There are specific practices (quite a few) within the main schools of Tibetan Vajrayana and many more available due to the numerous sub-sects within those main schools. Because of this, instead of presenting my personal (biased) take, I'd recommend some readings which are available online. These are quite elaborate commentaries, and may not suit one who's not a seasoned practitioner of mantrayana. Its challenging, but at the same time, informative and elaborative enough to address some of your questions. * One's Own Body of Pure Channels and Elements - Naomi Worth * The Practice of the Dream Body - C. A. Muses * Highest Yoga Tantra - Daniel Cozort * Tantra: Concepts, Energy-Winds and Lineage - - - from the website of Berzin Archives * Death, Sleep and Orgasm: Gateways to the Mind of Clear Light by Jeffrey Hopkins There are more, but the above ought to be quite sufficient material to enable a better grasp from a Vajrayana pov what the cultivation of the central channel entails. Its pretty nuanced, and would require a certain degree of maturity in practice to sieve through it all to obtain clarity. None of the articles cross-ref with Taoist esoteric philosophy and practice, but enthusiastic readers can certainly draw their own correlations, and probably will. But personally, I'm a stickler for authenticity, so no mix and match for me. This 15 minute video may offer the important initial foothold pertinent to whats being discussed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVVq9Bts1KA

Esoteric traditions and the practices therein rarely conform to mundane 'facts'. Part of the fun is finding out, thru experiential insights garnered from practice, is that what's been accepted as 'natural' or 'factual' was actually nothing more than an attitude and mindset determined by deeply ingrained, constrictive habits bound up in body, speech and mind - these in turn feed the delusion of "I, me and mine", a regressing cyclical phenomenon informed by neurotic fears and doubts. In dream work it's like being mired in quicksand, escaping, only to fall into another, and another... before suddenly waking up bewildered, drenched in cold sweat.

.. ..

😅 He was such a massive name back in the 80s. Majorly popular all over Asia, and a bit. Couldnt walk into any pub or karaoke in those parts without at least one of his hits being heard.

The air that enters one's body, though one says, "I breathe...my breath", in reality, there's no ownership, and no real source. Compassion is pretty much similar. Like space (or air), there's an infiniteness to genuine compassion. The idea that it's merely attributable within the limits of persons (like empathy, for example), is a mistake. Vision sensitive to expansiveness enables the witnessing of compassion in the whole of existence. It can be seen and felt in the smallest processes of nature, to the grosser, more directly cognized flows and ebbs of human to human relationships, and also human to the subtle processes in the natural world. Though without location, it is always possible to harness its potential.

Missing @freeform 🙂

Not this chap for sure

extra point word, there a support for graffiti art without borders

Yeah, point noted and taken. The reason for the picking up of pace, not only for advanced practices, but most every other aspect of life too, is a sign of the times. Instantaneous information flow is largely the culprit. When there's a global shift like that, its hard not to be affected even if one knows better and have taken measures to extract oneself away from the main shift and out onto the peripherals, supposedly to cultivate a saner, more conducive existence. Although when considering that the eye of the land hurricane is the calmest point, one begins to wonder.

You're right, imo its bonkers to neglect/forsake familial responsibilities under most circumstances and head off for the hills, metaphorically speaking. Generally though, householder phase (in Hinduism even, which you're prob familiar with.... the 2nd Ashrama?) is only the second stage in the full life of a person, from the angle of spiritual cultivation. Third Ashrama being the Hermit stage, followed finally by the stage of the sannyasa, the fourth Ashrama. There ought to be an observance of a sequential process to the integration of advanced practices - its not a path that one should adopt impulsively, and most mature practitioners, I believe, are well aware of this. Hopefully. In the tradition I follow, householders have options of doing short term retreats ranging from one month, to three months, to one year, and then three years. Its possible to do a few one-month or three-month retreats too if time is a constraining factor, before advancing further. These longer retreats are predicated on the assumption that the retreatant will have integrated or maybe even embodied the meaning of renunciation by then.

Hi Apech, Some clarification, please: This motion of love you mentioned, supposedly within the Mind, is this a metaphor for mind-prana? Asking because I've not heard it mention this way before. I've always assumed that the central channel manifests with our first in breath and continues to be nourished by the breath (prana). Interestingly, its believed that the central channel does not fully dissolve with the last breath for those accomplished in yoga. Its a key element necessary for traversing the bardo states and for directing one's intended rebirth destination. Non practitioners, with no knowledge of this, are reborn randomly. Mediocre practitioners like myself will also likely be randomly reborn due to a rusty pipe aka central channel As for practices related to this, I think its important to bear in mind that the winds caused to enter the central channel is not meant to remain indefinitely. Ignorance of the process of entering, remaining and dissolving can be harmful, and many have actually been harmed thru incomplete knowledge of the practice resulting in/from DIY errors. But this is not new knowledge - most practitioners here must already be aware of this by now. . . Upon further reflection, the process of purification of prana being enhanced by intense motivation of compassion and loving kindness makes sense when considering that in deep sleep, Mind-prana naturally gathers in the heart centre, the seat of compassion.

High level stuff, this 👆

Thats okay. Lets just hope silence is not a form of consent then.

Lately, yes. Relative to both the quantity of awaken's non-engaging posts dotted all over the board (or engagement permitted with very set boundaries and criterias - mind you, this is happening on the public forums). Isn't this a form of brutality? Whats the message being sent by not speaking out about such wantonly abusive behaviour? This is one. Secondly, the presence of what I would term attempts to justify this unpleasant attitude by alluding to its okayness just because a key figure in real Daoism had a weakness for abuse and violence. (See Taoist Text's earlier post).

Really, I thought I did already

Evidently that dark cloud from the 12th century is still looming large here on TDB today. No surprise. Karma is indeed a wonderful thing. If more Taoist practitioners subscribe to enabling abuse, or are themselves abusers, this dark mass will just gather more darkness till it eventually seeps into the marrows of contemporary adherents. Seems like it already has to some extent. I sure hope TDB is not condoning any suggestions that abuse is a necessary form of teaching, because this is clearly a warped, deviant view. @zerostao @steve

Ever heard of Kaprekar's Constant? Its really neat. https://math.hmc.edu/funfacts/kaprekars-constant/ Dattatreya Ramchandra Kaprekar was an Indian school teacher, moonlighting as a recreational math wizard. Or maybe it was the other way round? No idea. Anyway.... ...while on one of his mad math paddles, we have what is now known as Kaprekar's Constant. "A drunkard wants to go on drinking wine to remain in that pleasurable state. The same is the case with me insofar as numbers are concerned." (quote attributed to Mr. Kaprekar) 6174 protogenis kompsótita

In the old world maybe, before boundaries became a thing. Not saying it doesn't still happen - perhaps its still a common MO in cults -but such is it that the world today, or rather, the condition of it, with folks being more discernible and intelligently informed, such tactics (i like the term 'bents') are rarely accepted as 'part of the process of ground clearing'. While those who meekly accept being labeled 'evil' and 'smelly', and other unwarranted insults, or those who consciously choose to endorse a self-proclaimed adept by disregarding such mannerisms, convincing themselves they're somehow justified, are equally bent. These enablers must override helluva lot of conscience, even common sense, to make such a foolish assertion.

of the fainthearted Four Non Blonds has this to say.... Oh, whats going on??

~ Jamyang Khyentse Chökyi Lodrö ~ Heart Advice in a Nutshell The root of all dharmas is one's own mind: Convincing when unexamined, ingenious in its deception; Yet, when investigated, without basis or origin; In essence, free of coming, staying or going. All the phenomena of saṃsāra and nirvāṇa Are but pure or impure projections of one's own mind. In reality, neither saṃsāra nor nirvāṇa exists. Empty from the very beginning, pure from the first — Still, this emptiness is not a nihilistic void, For there is spontaneous presence in the nature of clear light. Responsive pure awareness is the basis for all that unfolds. Rigpa is beyond designation and verbalization. From its potential saṃsāra and nirvāṇa arise in all their multiplicity. The manifestation and the one that brings it about are not two: In the experience of this non-duality, remain—unaltered.

How utterly amazeiiing

It doesn't bother you? If the answer's yes, its a fascinating revelation. If its a no, its even more fascinating.

A model of Buddhist logic in discerning voidness, its pertinence in relation to self liberation, with a small passing refutation of Samkhya and Nyaya Vaisheshika positions. Excerpt from the Berzin Archives. (53) As it's like this, derision's improper in the direction of voidness. Therefore, without indecisively wavering, meditate, please, on voidness. (54) Voidness is the opponent for the darkness of the emotional and cognitive obscurations; (so) how can someone wishing for omniscience quickly not meditate on it? (55) (Cognizing) phenomena (as truly existent) gives rise to suffering: generate fear for that. But (realizing) voidness pacifies suffering: so why does fear generate for that? (56) (Go ahead and) be afraid of whatever, if there were something called a "me"; but as there's nothing that is a "me," then whose fear will it be? (57) Teeth, hair, or nails are not a "me"; nor am "I" bones or blood. ("I'm") neither mucous nor phlegm; and nor am "I" lymph or pus. (58) "I" am not fat or sweat; nor am "I" even lungs or a liver. "I'm" not any of the other inner organs; nor am "I" feces or urine. (59) Flesh or skin is not a "me"; nor am "I" temperature or energy-wind. In no way am "I" ever a bodily hole, nor are the six types of consciousness a "me." (60) And if (a person) were a permanent cognizer (as Samkhya asserts, and) of a sound, the sound would be cognized all of the time. But when bereft of something it cognizes, what does it know, by means of which it could be called a cognizer? (61) If it could be a cognizer without cognizing (something), then absurdly a stick would also be a cognizer. Therefore, it's certain that without something nearby that it's cognizing, it can't be a cognition. (62) Suppose (you said), "It itself is then cognizing a sight." (Well,) why doesn't it also hear at that time? If (you answered), "Because the sound's not nearby," (well,) then it's no longer a cognizer of it. (63) How can something having the nature of the cognizer of a sound become the cognizer of a sight? One can be labeled a father and a son, but not as his absolute nature. (64) And it's like this (because) sattva, rajas, and tamas (as the absolute nature of both a sound and a sight) are neither a son, nor are they a father; (and because) that (cognizer of a sight) has never been seen with a fundamental nature connected with a cognizer of a sound. (65) (Suppose you persisted,) "Like a dancer, it's still itself, but seen with another mode (of guise)." (Well then,) it wouldn't be static. And suppose (you clarified), "It's still itself, but (its fundamental nature) is in another mode." (Well then,) its oneness is one without any precedent. (66) Suppose (you explained), "But its assorted modes (of guise) are not true," then describe, please, its own (innate) natural (guise). Suppose (you answered,) "It's being a cognizer." (Well then), absurdly it would follow that all persons are one. (67) (Further,) what has intention and what lacks intention - those two would, in fact, become one thing, because their existence is the same. And, if individualities were contrary to fact, then what could be their shared support? (68) Furthermore, something lacking intention cannot be a self, (as Nyaya-Vaisheshika asserts), because of its nature of lack of intention, just like a vase and such things. Now (suppose you claimed), "It's cognizant because of a conjunction with an intention," then it absurdly follows that (this) noncognizant (self) has perished. (69) And if the self were (in fact) unchanging, what could have been done to it through (a connection with) an intention? (Moreover,) space is noncognizant and inert like that, so, it (as well) could become a self. (70) Suppose (you then objected), "But, without the (true) existence of a (static) self, the connection between behavioral cause and effect would be unreasonable, since, if it perished after having done an action, then whose action would it have been?" (71) (Well,) since it's established for both of us that the action and result have a different basis, and that the self hasn't an active role in this, isn't it useless to debate on this (point)? (72) "Someone providing a causal (action) and conjoined with its result" - this has never been seen as an existent thing. It's in reliance on the unity of a continuum that it is taught, "(Only) the agent can be the experiencer (of the results)." (73) The already-passed and the not-yet-arisen minds are not the self, since they don't exist (now). And well, if the (presently) arising mind were the self, when it perishes, there would, in fact, be no self! (74) For example, when the trunk of a plantain tree is split into parts, nothing (is found); likewise, when searched for with discerning analysis, a self isn't (found as) an absolute thing. (75) (Suppose) you asked, "If a limited being didn't exist, toward whom could there be compassion?" (Well,) it would be toward one who was conceptually labeled by a bewildered (mind) that had committed itself to the goal of its fruit. (76) (Suppose you then asked,) "Whose fruit would it be, if there were no limited being?" (Well,) that's true. It's accepted that (the wish) is due to bewilderment; (yet,) for the sake of pacifying suffering completely, bewilderment about the fruit is not turned back. (77) But because of bewilderment about the self, the cause of suffering, self-inflation, increases. (Suppose) you said, "But, there's no turning back from that." (Well,) best is meditation on the lack of an (impossible) self. (78) A body is neither the feet nor the calves; nor is a body the thighs or the hips. The belly or the back is not a body; neither is a body the chest or the arms. (79) The sides of the torso or the hands are not a body; nor is a body the armpits or the shoulders. The inner organs as well are not it; and neither is a body the head or also the neck. So what (alternative) could a body be here? (80) If this body were located with a portion in all of these; then, although the parts are located in the parts, where is it itself located? (81) And if a body itself, in its entirety, were located (everywhere), in the hands and so forth, there would be as many bodies as there were hands and so on. (82) As a body's not (located) outside or inside (the parts), how could a body exist in terms of the hands and so forth (as their possessor)? As it's also not (a possessor) separate from the hands and so on, how could it possibly be (truly) existent? (83) Thus, a body's not (truly) existent; but, because of bewilderment in terms of the hands and so forth, a dualistic mind arises of a body. It's like the dualistic mind that arises of a man in terms of a scarecrow, by its feature of having been set up in its shape. (84) For as long as the conditions are assembled, the body (of a scarecrow) is seen as a man; likewise, for as long as there are hands and so on, a body is seen in terms of them. (85) Similarly, because of its being a composite of fingers, which one could be a hand? (The same with) that (finger) as well, because of its being a composite of joints; and a joint as well, from the breakdown into its own parts; (86) And a part as well, through a breakdown into particles; and that particle as well, because of directional divisions; and a directional division too, because of its being without (findable) parts, like space. Consequently, even particles don't (truly) exist. (87) Therefore, what discerning (person) would be attached to a bodily form, which is like a dream? And when, like that, a body doesn't (truly) exist, then what's a male and what's a female?

This subject was a pet fascination years ago, and I used to put pen to paper for much of the thoughts around this, and the term I had a fondness for was 'the nondescript'. It was only later that I learnt about the word 'ineffable'. lol

What a nasty, spiteful individual, full of suspicion and jealousy. Not to mention a short list of other unbecoming traits. Wonder how many newcomers got a similar do over. I'm only just seeing this, and really sorry that you had to endure such nastiness upon membership. Bidding you a belated welcome! May your time here be a blessing to other smelly tao practitioners on TDB. 😁