forestofsouls

If none of these techniques work without transmission, and if transmission isn't given until Level II, then what are these Level I workshops for? Also, what makes Lama Dorje's spontaneous qi gong different from spontaneous qi gong as taught by Sifu Wong Kiew Kit or Sifu Chen?

What do you mean when you use the term karma? From what I've learned, karma is, at its most basic meaning, cause and effect. You give into anger over and over again, you develop a habit of anger. You cultivate awareness, you become more aware. The whole reason why practice works is karma. The same wheel that binds can set you free. I think what Ian is referring to is this tendency many of us have to fall into the delusion that we are awake when we are not. Many people are confused when I tell them I meditate to build attention--- they think we pay attention all the time. But they haven't studied the mechanisms of their mind-- how much we are driven by thoughts, impulses, desires, inattention. They don't even think they NEED to. And this is the most dangerous ego traps of all, because if one don't even know that one is in prison, there's no hope of escape. One can sleep, and sleep soundly. Of course, these words don't apply to any of us here.

If you think you have free will, try the following exercise for a week. Every time you go through a door, sense your entire body, as much as possible. Check back next week with your results. You can obtain experience in this area rather than philosophy.

I asked a Taoist priest, Master Chen, this question. He said they conflict like going west to east as opposed to east to west. But he said the end goals were the same. Personally, I like to practice Taoism (tai chi and chi kung) for health and Buddhism for the mind. One day, I may have to choose in order to take one approach whole heartedly, but fortunately, that day has not yet arrived.

I think that he's saying detachment is the key, no matter which route you go down. If you want LOA to work, you need to be detached from the outcome, but if that is so, then why LOA in the first place? Personally, I think that wanting creates an inner state where the growth of insight and wisdom isn't possible, much like trying to grow an apple tree in the sand. As the wise one said, you reap what you sow-- desire breeds desire.

Deng Meng Dao in his Chronicles of Tao writes: "Taoism is the method of studying and bringing ourselves into harmony with the Tao-- or, still further, it is the procedure for uniting with the Tao itself. The sages say 'The Tao is forever, and he that possesses it, though his body ceases, is not destroyed.' However, there is no one simple method. People are different, and the Tao is never static. Different ways of life must be tailored according to the needs and destinies of individuals." This, to me, is a good definition of Taoism.

These are some interesting thoughts. Samatha and vipassana, in the Theraveda tradition, support one another. It's not about stopping thought per se, but about focusing the mind. Just like you can't get a clear picture with a shaky camera, its hard to observe anything if your mind is bouncing around. You need "access concentration" first, or rudimentary concentration. I would think that it would be hard to pursue the internal inquiry (Who observes?) you propose without a similar ability to concentrate.

I just attended a one day workshop with Master Tseng (or Master Chen, as he likes to be called). He was had all the personality traits we'd expect --- he was genuine, funny, happy. I think he's nearing forty but he looks like he's in his twenties and moves almost like a teenager. I would say he was the most thorough teacher I've come across yet--- his explanation of Taoist theory was simple, precise, and cleared up a lot of misconceptions (or confusions) I had. He would from time to time give out interesting little tidbits-- he showed us how calligraphy hides the strokes for sword fighting, for instance. One thing I found interesting was that he said the biggest waste of jing wasn't sex, but attachment and inner turmoil. He also explained how virtue is the cornerstone to cultivation for just such reasons-- because it conserves your inner energy. I've found this to be true personally, but I've seldom found it emphasized outside of Buddhist circles. Another was how he emphasized the stages of taoist cultivation: first you regain your ordinary state, then you become extraordinary, and once you do that, you can think about cultivating immortality. He was also straightforward with the requirements for successful cultivation: effort and discipline. He also taught that the reason people can't feel chi vividly is because they haven't cleared their blockages yet. He taught us fairly straightforward chi kung and meditation practices --- moving, standing, sitting, along with their inner components. He gave us the first steps with directions on where to go once we improved. I would say all in all in terms of depth, breadth, and skill, he seemed to be one of the best I've encountered.

I think one would get a lot further with a system that has been proven over several millenniums rather than with inventing one's own system based on a single lifetime of experience*. My trouble with the modern view is the cafeteria approach: a practitioner picks and chooses what one likes and discards what one doesn't. It is hard to develop mental concentration and deal with internal states such as boredom, minor physical pain, and the desire to move about. The trouble with the spiritual path is that it is sometimes painful, but with purpose. It's simply too easy to cut out the hard parts and imagine that one can obtain anything without hard work. *: Buddha didn't have a lineage, but he mastered the one's that existed BEFORE declaring them unfit.

The top of the tongue touches the bottom of the roof of the mouth, like when you're making a clicking sound with your tongue. The word "curled up" is better than "rolled up". I usually put it further back than the teeth. The point is to complete the inner circuit. But isn't tai chi based on 13 postures to begin with?

I think this is something you have to see to believe. There is an old saying about abnormal phenomenon that I take to heart: I wouldn't have believed it on your testimony, and I do not expect you to believe it on mine. What is needed is an open, but skeptical mind. Remember there are legions of sages and wise men/women who all attest to the reality of chi, prana, ki, etc. I don't think you should believe them, but I think it means you should keep an open mind. On the other hand, most of the chi wielding people out there that I've met seem to be ignorant, deluded, etc. So some skepticism is required.

I agree. There seems to be a western assumption that we have an enduring personality but this just isn't the case. This is an odd use of the enneagram. From what I understand from Gurdjieff, the enneagram symbolizes at least two major laws from his system: the law of three (that everything has a passive, active, and neutralizing component) and the law of seven (that thing develop in an uneven way). The concept of the enneagram is much more fluid. The most ironic thing about this is that Gurdjieff warned about believing in an enduring self and the danger of the false personality. But then, according to Gs own system, things often come to represent the exact opposite of where they started (i.e. Christianity based on love, then used to justify killing/slaughter). PS: Per the test, I'm a type 1, then 3, then 4

I think its sad how martial arts seem to have denigrated for the most part. The Aikido described here is much different from what I've seen offered in most schools --- which as described here is physical rather than internal. Tai Chi is often the same way. It seems that more often than not, only the external parts are transmitted. Then, a few generations down, no one thinks that Aikido has anything to do with Ki, or that Tai Chi is a great way to stretch. Thaddeus, What about Hsing-I or Ba Gua?

A lot of the guides claim that a key step on the path is achieving emptiness of mind, a state where no thoughts arise. I find it much easier to concentrate the mind than to empty it completely. Some say that it comes naturally, others say it can be achieved with discipline. My questions for the group: How important is it? Can it be achieved? How so?

I agree that there is a lot of wisdom to be learned by using the body, and it is a good anchor as well as a vantage point. However, by focusing on the body, are we unnecessarily limiting ourselves? The body and the sensations of the body are one dimension. By focusing on one dimension, are we missing many others? Are we caging our consciousness?

Thought as process and content. This is an interesting, and useful discrimination. However, I wonder what the difference is between thoughts as objects and sensory things as objects. Sometimes when I sit, I cross the line between dreaming and being awake. The thought as content will suddenly become as seemingly solid and real as, well, the real world. Then, in a moment, it is gone and I am sitting. I suppose what I'm aiming at with emptiness of mind is a mental space that has no objects, either sensory or mental. Focusing on the senses or on a thought are both elements of concentration from my view.

I've often heard of the criticism that the West treats the symptoms and not the cause. That is to say, we suffer an ailment, seek a professional who "fixes us" and then we go right back into the conditions that caused the ailment in the first place.

Well said. I'd add in that it's easier to learn to deal with suffering in the smaller cases, like having a stomach ache or a minor physical discomfort. Like a warrior preparing for battle, it is better to practice before we face the real steel and blood. Sooner or later, we will be faced with greater suffering, like the death of a loved one, our own mortality, or a debilitating illness. But if we have prepared ourselves in the smaller cases, we will be far better off.

The point is that even if people have material wealth, there is still suffering. Even if we changed the world so that everyone had enough to eat, proper medical care, and shelter, there would still be suffering. Many sages have proposed the following hypothesis: 1. Suffering has internal causes, not external causes. 2. Suffering is rooted in desire, in wanting or avoiding. I'm not expecting anyone to accept these because so many sages, in every religion has said so. No, but I suggest that it therefore a worthy hypothesis to be taken under investigation. My own experience confirms this hypothesis*. Perhaps many of you have disproved in your own experience this hypothesis, after long and careful examination. If so, there is nothing more to say, because words are hollow compared to first hand experience. *- not only that, but it also justifies certain practices, especially tuning in to the present. When I am fully present to to what's going on now, my mind has no room to wander in the past or in the future, it doesn't compare, analyze, and criticize, etc.

There is still scarcity. All the money and power in the world won't add a second onto your life. Even chi kung and tai chi masters die of degenerative diseases. This goes to the core of the whole Buddha myth: he had everything he wanted materially, but he still could not escape sickness, old age, and death. They not only come for us, but they come for those around us. Whether we like them or not. Also, I wonder if there is enough to go around. We may live in rich countries, but look at the impoverishment of so much of the world that makes that possible.

Here are two of my favorites: Mindfulness in Plain English. The perennial classic on developing awareness. A Course in Consciousness. Where physics meets advaita.

If you fight it dead on, then yes. I like Vivekananda's description of the mind: he says its like a monkey, which is inherently jumpy and restless. But this monkey happened to get drunk off wine. Then he was stung by a scorpion, so he's poisoned. To make matters worse, a demon has entered and possessed the monkey's body. * Now you can't just sit the monkey down and expect him to stay. But do you really want to give him some more wine? I'm not saying we should go head to head with desire straight on. But I don't think we should just give into it either. I DO believe that the mind is like a tree, a muscle, or an animal is that it grows slowly, over time, according to the conditions around it. If you have a flabby muscle, you can't just lift weights for three days straight and have muscle. But you can develop it, over time, through the use of resistance. So with desire, I wouldn't suggest, for myself or others, to quit everything cold turkey. But I am apt to do things that turn down the flames, such as concentrating on the present moment and following a simple moral code. Or to watch my desires as they develop, grow, and dissipate, so that I may understand them more. I just see things like the Secret throwing more fuel into the fire, that's all. * The analogy being for Vivekandanda, the wine represents desire, the poison jealousy, and the demon, pride.

It's been suggested that the first victims of our actions are ourselves. My experience with this has been like so: I want something. It churns and churns inside. I get it. Temporary bliss. Then I want something else. There's that wanting again. Repeat. Every time I give into that wanting, it grows little stronger by force of habit. Just like rubbing on stone: one rub doesn't do much, but a lot of rubbing and you have a groove. It may become such a habit, like driving to work, that I don't even need to pay attention to it. My mind can wander and dream about all the things it wants while my body chases after them. Not a good thing, imo.

Even so, something sits very uneasily with me about the Secret. I think its the way it seems to spiritualize lust and greed, to make them seem almost healthy to want more wealth, sex, etc. for oneself. Of course, the techniques themselves seem not too far afield from the classics. But I wonder what the price is for applying these toward spiritual, self-fulfilling ends.

I see, being open and receptive is the second part. What do you mean by the emotional flow part?