devoid

Hi Sunya, Edit: Sunya, I just checked again: I said: " Spinoza who's basic premise is that rather than God being something with a uniquely identifiable personality, God is in everything." - so, I think we're in agreement here? About the non-duality, I must admit I see that's as a bit of an over-used term - but perhaps you can help me clear that up? (Here's where I am coming from: In discussing the Tao, you will have the same requirement for a starting premise, i.e. the initial spark of yang in the wuji, so to say, i.e. the start or beginning of the creating force. I haven't seen Robert Bruce having a different take on that either, for that matter.)

Hi alwayson, As always: thanks for posting Robert Bruce stuff. About the idea of God being in every one of us: I think you might enjoy the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza who's basic premise is that rather than God being something with a uniquely identifiable personality, God is in everything. I always really liked this idea as neither monotheistic nor atheistic world-views resonated with me and if I could think of "God" as being the entire universe I would not take personal offence of the term. Today, I think of Spinozan Ethics (that's the name of his book) as a nice way to try to bridge the gap between the monotheistic religions and taoism, although I am sure that was not his goal - I simply see it as an interesting by-product

Hi Vajrahridaya, I like this - thanks for posting

Hi SurfingBuddha and Marblehead, I have been wanting to research this topic for a while and didn't quite know where to start - thanks for providing a few pointers!

Astral, good topic. Marblehead, I like your thoughts on harmony as the result of pragmatic balance on many fronts / points.

Is it dangerous to proceed on your own? IMHO nothing in this life is really dangerous with oneself in the drivers seat if one is sensible about things and back of, regroup and think whenever somethings isn't quite right. I never had a master other than books (and I mean lots of them) in my spiritual endeavors. In other words, I would never agree with those who insist that one should have a teacher for the fully internal stuff. Don't get me wrong: a teacher is probably the best thing if one is both unsure and yet absolutely sure that one has found a teacher one can fully trust - if not however, IMHO one is better off on ones own, being able to piece ones own picture together with the pieces of the big puzzle one encounters on the way... Please feel free to disagree (I know many of you will)

Hi Niklas and DAO rain TAO, I had promised you a follow-up on Tantric Buddhist Qigong. (As a side note, the word 'tantric' has do with the lineage only and what I will talk about here has absolutely nothing to do with sexual practices). The only source of this which I am aware of is from the book "Qigong Empowerment" by Shou-Yu Liang and Wen-ChingWu which is one of my all-time favorites as it really acts as a handbook. The book is divided into 5 sub-books of which number 3 is titled Buddhist Qigong. In it they discuss the tantric buddhist esoterics including body seals, mantras and the mind. After a brief intro to all this they go onto describe a number of qigong exercises in detail: 1) Nine-segment Buddhist breathing (Jiujie Fofeng), 2) Precious vessel qigong (Baopingqi), 3) Achieving through spiritual flame (Lingre Chengjiufa), 4) The great perfection / heart essence (Dayuanman Xinsui), 5) Armor protection from negative energies and 6) The nine esoteric seals (Jiuzi Miling). As the general intro to this chapter is a bit short on what is related to Buddhist meditation techniques in general, it may be a good idea to supplement with the relevant parts of "The Secrets of Chinese Meditation" by K'Uan Lu Yu aka Charles Luk (also the author of the much discussed book Taoist Yoga). I wish you both happy trails in your (re)searching

Hi DAO rain TAO, I will be happy to tell you what little I know about it. However, I've gotta log off for now, but will try to follow up on this within the next day or two.

Ahh - that explains it - yes, my initial perspective was the Daoist - that's why I spoke about ren mai and du mai when you spoke about breathing (because I assumed you were alluding to the microcosmic orbit). I am not really familiar with indian yogic tradition - sorry for not being able to help you further with that one, but hopefully somebody else can On a side-note: keep in mind that indian systems of chakras differ somewhat from the daoist ones: They are upper, middle and lower dantian (the lower is generally considered the main one and it is the one I have been speaking about in my posts above).

Hi Astral, From looking at the web site it's about teaching people fajin - many skilled martial artists will tell you that you don't need to understand qi (or even acknowledge it for that matter) to learn that as it is mainly a matter of body mechanics, form and intent. 'Internal' simply means that you use the body mechanics of your entire body to toss the opponent rather than by simply swinging an arm around, say, the shoulder joint. Their videos give you a taste of this.

Ahh, perhaps I misunderstood your initial question - where you trying to ask instead about the breathing channels from Tantric Buddhist Qigong (Jiujie Fofeng)? If that's what you meant there's a central channel (dantian to mouth) and side channels dantian to nostrils - all inside the torso. Perhaps it would help if you could provide some more info as to what you are trying to figure out? The dantian is the sub-naval one - in some measurements 2-4 cun below the naval although some tell you its simply behind the naval and yet others insist it is even further down. Again, if you can be more specific about what you are trying to do it will probably be easier to help you with the answer you are looking for.

Hi Niklas, Good question - you're asking about three meridians / channels / vessels as I understand it: the ren mai and du mai (governing and conception vessels) as well as the chong mai (the penetrating vessel). From an acupuncture point point of view they're all pretty much just beneath the skin, but in some intepretations the chong mai runs very much inside the body from around the dantian and then upwards kind of alongside the inside of the spine towards the centre of the head. Thus, to summarize ren mai and du mai are well defined along the outside of the spine, head, down through the tongue onto the throat and down the front-centre line of the torso, while chong mai is less so well-defined and as a consequence I would say may be subject to what you practice or want to practice.

Hi theELementalist, There are many ways to the Tao - both formal and informal. Do you have an intermediate goal? I ask you to ask yourself because that could help you answer your own question about where to look. You may have many goals and you may not want to talk about all of them out loud - but if you can create clarity for yourself you will know better in what direction to look which again will help you ask the question about which practices you should consider. Sorry if that was not the kind of answer you were looking for, but given that there are more systems and practices out there than a person can cover in a life span, regardless of level of devotion, I think the question is very important for anyone seeking.

Hi Astral_Anima, I don't really know anything about the guys behind the webpage you posted, so this is mainly general stuff combined with having had a quick glance. I would like to divide your questions into no less than three questions: 1) the discussion of pre- and post- birth qi, 2) the discussion of the bubbling wells and 3) the discussion of martial power 1) the discussion of pre- and post- birth qi The ancient taoists believed that one is born with a certain amount of qi (the pre-birth / pre-heaven) qi which one inherits from ones parents and and any post-birth / post-heaven qi is acquired in the form of breath, food and beverage. According to the belief the pre-birth qi cannot be replenished and once it is all used up, we die. The pre-birth qi is stored in the kidneys (in the Chinese sense i.e. kidneys and testicles / ovaries) and the post-birth qi is stored in the dantian. 2) the discussion of the bubbling wells The bubbling well points on the feet (yongquan) is thought by the ancient taoists to be an energy conductor for raising energy from the ground and up through the legs. 3) the discussion of martial power Martial arts schools that like to use the notion of qi traditionally ask the students to focus on returning energy to ones centre - the dantian - the theory goes that if one can connect the limbs through the body to the dantian as a kind of super-intersection, one can perform martial arts very effectively (subject to having done the gong fu for training perfect form). Without knowing the proposition of the martial arts school you wrote about, my guess is that they suggests to their students to focus more on conducting power from the legs up rather than from the dantian. IMHO it is not necessarily a matter of either or - rather I see it as different emphasis on trying to explain the same game - one discusses it through being centered and the other does it through discussing a strong root. I guess either perspective has its legitimacy although at the same time I think it would be a vice to consider the methods fundamentally different: after all, both seem to attempt to manifest martial power based on "internal" principles.

Marblehead - you did it again: Left out individual experience and rest on some common belief - is that intentional?

Welcome Adishakti, It is nice to have you here

Hi Marblehead, Firstly, sorry for addressing you by responding to my own post - I know this is kind of tacky Yet given the discussion since I wrote it this morning I think we have a prime example on pages 2 and 3 of this thread of discussing belief over experience: In summary I tried to say that unless you experience what is being talked about it becomes a discussion of belief. Until few years ago I was very much in line with your train of thought as presented in this thread - then I experienced a number of things that made me realize that there is more available than meets the eye. I follow no religion, yet due to experience I am absolutely convinced about dead people existing around us (lets just call them souls to try to prevent unnecessary gory imagery ) - why, because I have experienced it first hand and was later able to validate my experience through others (in their flesh and blood ) who would probably also think I'm a mad hatter if I told them about my experiences - instead we left it at them being puzzled that I could say the things I said about somebody who died decades before I was born. With this I simply want to add that I find your insisted scepticism both healthy and entertaining - healthy, because you will apparently not accept anything somebody else tells you without first validating it on your own and entertaining, because of your non-stop insistence on pursuing the dialogue in this thread. So, let me end off with this: When you one day check out from this life and realize that it doesn't end that easily, feel free to look me up to say goodbye - I can't guarantee it, but with the intent of wanting to say goodbye to devoid from the taobums site should probably be enough. If that happens, I'll happily show you around a bit. For now, I hope you can simply appreciate my proposal as benign token of cordial goodwill, even though you choose not to believe a word of it for now.

Hi Cat Pillar, I think this is a great question and topic post - although it is a question which can only be answered through personal experience or belief system I think it matters a great deal. Here's my take on it coming from my own experience: Our physical senses: touch, smell, sound, taste, sight etc. is subject to our physical organs - without the physical body, such sensory input is simply not available to us. Yet, in my experience, something else allows us to communicate with something else if we still our minds enough - so, people talk about third eyes, energy, vibrations, higher self, spirit bodies, etc. Just like the tao, it is impossible to describe in words and even difficult to sketch or outline - for me experience remains the real transformational element. In other words: if I recount my experiences to you can chose to like them or not, believe or disbelieve them, make up your own mind - yet your own experiences are no matter of liking or believing - instead, they are part of your realty (your personal reality).

Hi surfingbuddha, I think this is an excellent question. My guess is that there will always be phenomena around which we can't or won't be able to prove (or disprove) based on standards, observational methods which can be easily replicated. Personal experience and development is a great thing - I think it would be a shame if we would try to restrict it only to what can be validated scientifically.

Hi strawdog65, Thanks for this question - I think it is a very important one. I would like to dive straight into the core argument of the article on this point: "Like a tiny bullet, it logically passes through one or the other hole. But if the scientists do not observe the trajectory of the particle, then it exhibits the behavior of waves that allow it pass through both holes at the same time. Why does our observation change what happens? Answer: Because reality is a process that requires our consciousness." -here I believe the author is alluding to the theory of e.g. photons which once emitted, hold the properties of being a wave as well as a particle. As the author points out in another part of the article, this leads to interesting phenomena and observations: If you manage to split the wave in two, they (the waves) will continue along their split paths it. In other words, the particle will now coexist in two physically distinct places and if you stop one part of the wave, you will stop the other too (even if you try really hard not to!). Now, this is about as far as quantum theory goes, but the author continues in the text quoted above to say that our observation changes when this happens due to reality requiring consciousness. IMHO that is ridiculous. The author just proved to me that he totally misunderstood that what goes on. I believe he misunderstood the fact that when you measure such a "split particle" the funny thing is that you can only measure one of the two - why? because when you measure a photon you stop its path and it ceases to exist as a result thereof. At that particular point in time you will be able to record whether it had a spin or not and if properly spun you could even measure the axis around which it was spun. This has absolute nothing to with the consciousness of the observer according to quantum theory Let's look a bit more at photons: As an example, our sun constantly emits mind bogging numbers of these at any short interval of time - they are emitted (at the speed of light) in all directions. They continue until they hit something. At this particular point in time the law of thermodynamics will explain to you why what they hit will heat up as a result: the photon that we just new and studied has ceased to exist... Please do not hesitate to let me know if you would like some recommendations on books on quantum mechanics or quantum physics. Now as for your other questions: I can't really say I know the answer to them - I have some personal experience that there is more intelligence and life around us than we can understand through science. Now, please let me ask you a question: Why must we try to box in our experiences with science?

Hi Sunya, Thanks for posting these very interesting talks! In line with the topic title of this post, I think you may also enjoy reading "Zen and the Brain: Toward an Understanding of Meditation and Consciousness" - by James H. Austin (MIT Press) who is not only the author, but a clinical neurologist, scientific researcher, and Zen practitioner. The book is full of interesting observations and insight.

There's no 'I' in 'energy'

Hi CMPunk50, Welcome to the Taobums - may you enjoy your time here

Hi relaxer, Welcome - it's nice to have you on board

Hi surfingbudda, Thanks for posting a great article - I really enjoyed it. I always think of the kind of feeling that is described in this article (i.e. being in the flow) as the embodiment of the meaning of the phrase doing without doing. I do however not agree with you that science is catching up on ancient taoist wisdom as suggested in the subtitle of this thread - I also don't think that is what the author of the article claims (at least not in the text you posted) - instead he talks about scientific research papers that correlate happiness to this feeling which is quite a different claim - and an interesting one in its own right, I might add