Sunya

Didn't realize I have to agree with Chinese governmental policies to study Chinese philosophy lol

Keep us updated dude! I took it everyday before bed.. chewed it with warm water. I felt fatigued for a week and then felt ok, I hear this is normal. My friend really likes the Chulen pills.. he says that whenever he takes one he has better meditation, more energy, less sexual desire, and less desire to eat. I think perfect for retreat settings (purpose of the pill).

I think it's quite good to question everything, that is the sign of a true inquirer and takes a real sense of character because questioning doesn't lead to happiness, at least not right away. I've had many moments of utter dispair and realizing I don't know anything. Doubting everything leaves you with this very moment free of concepts, but what about doubting the doubter? Who is asking the question? Is that a given or can it too be doubted? Anyway, the opinions of others are not always opinions; some know what they are talking about. I think we should be very thankful for having others around. The path of the solitary realizer is extremely difficult, and even he learns from the world around him. There is truly no such thing as a solitary realizer due to that. Since we have the wisdom of others to guide us, their words to point us in the right direction, and their experiences to motivate us... we are very lucky. The teachings of the various paths serve as that, a Way for us to follow. It is all up to you on how you travel the path and whether you follow it at all. Some like to do things the hard way and figure things out for themselves through trial and error. That's my way, it's not fun. Others just pick it up intuitively and follow along and get quite far. Those of us who are extremely skeptical tend to make the slowest progress... but we also have a very beautiful inquisitiveness that might take us even further than those who don't question the teachings. Perhaps our skeptical nature allows us, eventually, to embrace the teachings even more fully once we realize through our skepticism that the teachings after all are true, and so we have even stronger devotion. About opinions themselves, they require belief.. and sometimes that belief is necessary. If you want to rip up your beliefs then that is another matter and you are on a different path than those who need beliefs. Not everyone is ready for the brutal game of ego dissolution. But... I think beliefs in the right things can serve as gradual steps down into the true nature of non-conceptuality. They are actually quite unavoidable until you have direct insight into the way of things. As long as thoughts dictate your knowledge, you're stuck in beliefs. Thoughts all stem from beliefs, they truly are unavoidable. So we are talking about the nature of thoughts then, that is the real essence of the topic. Not beliefs, not opinions, but thoughts. What is the underlying assumption of our pre-occupation with thoughts? All thoughts have an underlying assumption of a referential point -- they all seem to point inward at a self existing somewhere independent of thought, a soul or pebble of being that is somewhere but cannot be found. Even the desire of shredding apart beliefs depends on someone doing the shredding. Is there a thinker? I don't know!

The policies of the Chinese government suck.

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MISC/101801.htm Daoism and Buddhism are unique among the great religions in denying the ontological self. Anatma non-self is one of the three basic "facts" taught by Sakyamuni Buddha, along with anitya impermanence and duhkha dissatisfaction. Two of his basic teachings deconstruct the self synchronically into skandha "heaps" and diachronically into pratitya-samutpada "dependent-origination". These doctrines explain how the illusion of self is constituted and maintained. All experiences associated with the illusory sense-of-self can be analyzed into one of five impersonal skandhas (form, sensation, perception, volitional tendencies and conditioned consciousness), with no remainder: there is no transcendental soul or persisting self to be found over and above their functioning. This skandha analysis has, however, been overshadowed and even subsumed into pratitya-samutpada, the most important Buddhist doctrine. Dependent-origination explains "our" experience by locating all phenomena within an interacting set of twelve factors (ignorance, volitional tendencies, conditioned consciousness, the fetus, sense-organs, contact, sensation, craving, grasping, becoming, new birth, suffering and death), each conditioning and conditioned by all the others. In response to the question of how rebirth can occur without a self that is reborn, rebirth is explained as one in a series of impersonal processes which occur without there being any self that is doing them or experiencing them. When asked to whom belong, and for whom occur, the phenomena described in pratitya-samutpada, the Buddha explained that each factor arises from the preconditions created by the other factors; that's all. The karmic results of action are experienced without there being anyone who created the karma or who receives its fruit, although there is a causal connection between the act and its result. As one would expect from its very different literary style, the Zhuangzi is less systematic in its critique of the self, yet the rejection is no less clear. Chapter one declares that "the utmost man is selfless" and chapter seventeen that "the great man has no self" (pp. 45, 150). Chapter two, the most philosophical, begins with Ziqi in a trance, to reveal afterwards that "this time I had lost my self, didn't you know?" Like other anecdotes about mind-fasting, which explain how to lose one's self, these passages are not concerned to philosophically deconstruct the self into its elements, but they emphasize or presuppose the need to get beyond self. Instead of offering an account of social development or evolution, Daoist history is the story of a progressive decline in our understanding of the Way. Some of the old sages knew the ultimate, which is that there are no self-existing things; everything is a manifestation of the Dao. Later, people perceived the world as made up of things, but these things were not seen as separate from each other; their interrelationships and transformations meant the world was still experienced as a whole. After that, people came to see things as truly discrete, the world became a collection of objects, yet even they did not use discriminative thinking to understand the world. Once people employed and became trapped in their own dualistic concepts, the Dao was lost. In terms of the image, self-forgetting or mind-losing (wang xin) is the practice of polishing one's mind-mirror and keeping it clean of impurities. To say the least, such meditative techniques are also important in Buddhism, which is probably the richest of the world's contemplative traditions. Although Nagarjuna mentions little about such practices, as a monastic he was doubtless familiar with them and they provide the context within which his work must be situated, especially its emphasis on prapancopasama, the cessation of conceptual ways of understanding, which is necessary if one is to experience things as they are. Burton Watson suspects that the Zhuangzi must originally have been accompanied by similar practices to help students realize what it is talking about, yet all that survives in the text are some references to controlled breathing. By such practices the xin of the sage becomes "the reflector of heaven and earth, the mirror of the myriad things" (ch. 13, p. 259). Nonetheless, the mirror-metaphor, like all metaphors, has its limitations. To be a perfectly-polished mirror is not quite the same as being no-thing at all: there is still a dualism between the reflector and the reflected. This may encourage the tendency of contemplative types to stand back from the world, but Zhuangzi will have none of that: "To be transformed day by day with other things is to be untransformed once and for all. Why not try to let them go? For the sage, there has never yet begun to be Heaven, never yet begun to be man, never yet begun to be a Beginning, never yet begun to be things" (ch. 25, pp. 110-111). To forget oneself completely, truly to become no-thing, means more than to reflect the transformations of things: it is to be wholly identified with them, to be them -- in which case there are no things and no transformations, since "that which is without anything is for ever without anything" (quoted above). Such a world is not a collection of things but is composed of events. Evidently someone who realizes she is no-thing remains no-thing even as she playfully assumes this or that form. When there is no thing or self that exerts itself to do things, there is the spontaneity (ziran, "so of itself") of actions that are experienced as no actions (wu wei), of transformations that are just as much non-transformations. When I forget my-self I fall into the world, I become its manifold of interdependent phenomena transforming into each other. What does mean for language and truth? Do they too become such a manifold?

Thank you, though Dwai was saying first there was 'One' but that's not true, first there was Tao and Tao is timeless. Dwai was implying that Tao is monist concept but it's not. Anyway, I like this quote, quite good. The Tao that can be known is not Tao. The substance of the World is only a name for Tao. Tao is all that exists and may exist; The World is only a map of what exists and may exist. One experiences without Self to sense the World, And experiences with Self to understand the World. The two experiences are the same within Tao; They are distinct only within the World. Neither experience conveys Tao Which is infinitely greater and more subtle than the World. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taote-v1.txt Confused.. which translation and passage from which Taoist sage did you get this equating of Tao with 'One'? It seems in my reading that Tao has always been non-conceptual and never equated with such a concept.

Find a quote from Laozu or Zhuangzu that there was only one.. I hardly think any Taoist worth his damn would agree with that since the Tao is inexpressible, to say One is to imply another as a reference point, its a dualistic concept. What you're saying is true, to an extent. Except by 'Self' you mean existence, or AMness. Existence is undeniable since if there wasn't existence, there wouldn't be questions. Descartes made the same mistake though, he denied everything except existence and thus concluded 'I exist therefore I am' -- but where is this I? The nature of Self or I as a word is a reference point, the concept refers back to something or someone here. The Buddhist no-self does not deny experience but it denies that there is someone here separate from everything else happening. This 'someone' is an interrelated phenomenological happening. To say 'I' is to cut up reality, to say Self is to deny Other. How can there be Self without Other? Experience itself is free of such dualistic concepts, there is only experience but no separate self from that experience. The concept 'I' isn't bad, it has pragmatic value but it bears no metaphysical truth value. It's just a deeply ingained thought pattern stemming from wrongly viewing reality based on a dualistic paradigm. Meditation isn't what you think -- at least, not in the sense that there exists a pure non-conceptual state free from dualistic mind patterns. To access the state between thoughts does not mean that no subtle non-verbal thoughts exist in this 'pure consciousness' you refer to. It still has deep primal seeds of dualistic concepts in there. That's why you come out reifying. It's just a deep tendency. There's no self or Self. Both are dualistic concepts that limit nondual insight from being truly nonconceptual.

that's very convincing. actually, the whole idea of 'stuff' underlying everything is an idea that only exists in your mind. It's about as real as unicorns and elves, though more convincing than separate objects existing independently because you have deep experience of this 'stuff', but does experience mean that 'stuff' or 'Self' really is? What's so factual about your experience besides a convincing emotion and interplaying phenomena?

Prove it. Show me this underlying stuff, this essence, this Self.

The 'I' and 'ego' are both mental conceptions bearing no reality. Anyway who said Buddhism is the only religion that says ego is an illusion?

what's so great about being kosher?

wow !!

it's worth a try though! maybe you'll get something out of it

I tried it multiple times, received no perceivable benefit

Have you seen a TCM doc? depending on your condition, fasting could be harmful. I have dampness (spleen qi deficiency) and I remember trying to fast before without realizing that it was harmful, I didn't get sick or anything and I certainly did benefit from noticing my attachment to consumption, but I certainly didn't make matters any better for my condition. btw juice fasting is great but watch out for all the sugar. if I were you i'd stick to juicing greens; I recommend this book for advice on what to juice and what to combine and when. http://www.amazon.com/Juice-Fasting-Detoxification-Healing-Fastest/dp/1878736655/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269497336&sr=8-1

Not particularly Qi Gong but still worthy of your attention: http://www.suprememeditation.org/

In the Dzogchen lineage, there is a practice of purification that deals with the 5 elements. Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche teaches it and its part of all the thuns (sequences of practices). The purification is done using visualization in the heart and combined with specific mantras.

I heard that when the baby was born they kept losing it because it kept going transparent.

Jenny recommends (as she wrote on the Q&A section on her site) not to mix practices; Max says the same thing, but I didn't learn from him so I don't know. Jenny's reasons is that different practices do different things. For example AYP is a fire path that is bottom-up, Kunlun is not. Kundalini is merely one expression of the central channel opening, there are other varieties and modalities of energies that do this through different means. to be more specific, Jenny says not to do any practices that specifically move energy around, but I standing meditation and breathing stuff is totally fine I would say. The Qigong that she taught us was the kind that opens channels through movement and breathing. You could probably do Yoga too.

Great movie. I also really like this one, about hermit monks living in mountains in China http://www.amongstclouds.com/

Jenny updated her site and now has a Q&A section with lots of info http://www.easterninternalarts.org/

The purpose of Vipassana isn't concentrative states so of course other methods work better toward jhana. Vipassana you investigate all phenomena as it occurs to see if it has any self, permanency or satisfaction. Some concentrative ability is necessary though prior to doing Vipassana. Since Westerners in general are quite smart, Vipassana works very well for us since we live in our heads most of the time anyway I think it's good you want to mix Vipassana with energy practices. I think all the negative dark night stuff that Daniel Ingram talks about can be minimized or even avoided entirely if one also practices Qi Gong. But all of it can also be avoided by pursuing the direct path of self inquiry; once you see that there is no-self, but rather just awareness -- who is there to suffer? This path though is quite difficult, so might not work for everyone. Whatever works for you is best.