forestofsouls

I was perusing the John Chang thread recently, and it made me wonder: how many people out there have actually met some one who could provide a real, demonstrable manifestation of chi or chi-like phenomenon? I think that Mr. Denty is right: once you taste the real thing, there's no doubt whatsoever. Personally, I've met two. The most powerful was Master Waysun Liao. When I met Master Liao, I wanted to "test" him. We've all seen those martial arts demonstrations where the so-called master demonstartes mystical techniques on people of their own choosing. I had this in mind and wanted to test ML. Much to my surprise, he ASKED me to test him. At one point, I had my body wedged between the floor and his arm trying to keep him from lowering it, all to no avail. But the real kicker is when he was demonstrating how chi should feel when one is practicing correctly. Make no mistake, this stuff is as far from imagination as the law of gravity. I'm wondering if anyone has had similar first-hand experiences, and if so, with who.

I would check for the two common problems that can lead to this: 1. Check your posture. 2. Check your concentration. Concentration practices generally lead to tension especially in the head, neck, and shoulders and this tension is often ignored. Make sure to relax and let these tensions go, especially when concentrating for a long time.

The Four Noble truths are not just an organizing principle. They are the path itself. Realizing these truths deeply leads to liberation.

A remote master would not do anyone any good. I think the trouble with teachers is similar to the problem with the mind. We look in all the wrong places.

Great post. A good counterpoint to the neo-Advaita group.

I don't know, Hagar. I am becoming firmly convinced that there is a teacher greater than all of them, who is willing and able to teach anyone at any time. A teacher who has no hype to live up to, nothing to gain, no agenda, no scandals, who charges nothing and gives everything. I don't think this teacher would have us stumble in the dark, unless we need or want to.

I find this hard to believe. Who knows you are the object? I think you may have missed the observer altogether.

I don't think "Who am I" is conducive to producing special states. I don't think that's the point. Who am I?, in my experience so far, moves beyond the objects. That means beyond thoughts, sensations, states. All these come and go, and nowhere do the great Masters say, "Ask Who am I? and then wait for a particular experience." If it brought about a particular experience, it would have a beginning and an end, and it would not be who you really are every moment.

If anyone is really interested, from a Buddhist perspective, there is actually an entire (Mahayana) Sutra on this. You can find a good translation here. Why do you believe it is in the center of your head? Do you perceive it there? If so, it's not your mind. awake, I'm still waiting for some one to explain to me how insentient matter can give rise to sentient perception, either in the form(lessness) of consciousness or in the distinct mental perceptions we have. Really, an EEG is nothing more than a series of mental sensations. The brain is also, in my opinon, nothing but a series of mental sensations. Pointing at the brain as the source of the mind is like pointing at a wave as the source of the ocean.

How do you affect other people? I would be curious to learn more about that.

I don't necessarily agree with what you wrote on assumptions. Assumptions may have an experiential basis. If assumptions were alogical, they wouldn't make any sense. For instance, I might assume that "soup in the 2 = 0". No, I don't assume that. On the other hand, I assume based on your writing that you are a male. It is logically based on tone, style, and content. Yet it is an assumption. What I know about perception is based on experience. I can't say it is active nor passive. How do I know it's different from all other things, including active mentation? Well, I have perceived it. Perceivin transcends and includes other states, which is how we can even talk about them to begin with. I don't know what you mean by true contemplation. I do know there is a difference between thinking about Paris and travelling to Paris. Likewise, there is a difference between thinking about the mind and observing the mind. Experience and concepts obviously bear some relationship. Again, we could make up nonsensical concepts. If I go out and look at mountains, I may come up with a concept of a mountain, a mental abstraction based on experiential sensation. I am unlikely to come up with a concept "lever tree two thousand". However, I could come up with concepts about Paris based on reading about Paris, and come up with concepts based on visiting Paris. These different experiences will give rise to completely different concepts, don't you think?

gih, I don't have a great agenda. What I find perplexing, and interesting about your posts is the unique combination of things that seem completely wrong and things that are right on. My purpose for this exchange was to 1) sharpen my communication; 2) see if there anything to learn; 3) see what produces gih types of posts. I am a simple person. In the past, I used to philosophize a lot, contemplate a lot, spun up thoughts up a lot. But over time, I found this not to be helpful. One helpful thing I learned is that there was no thought, no way of thinking, no book, no golden key, no technique that would solve the riddle. I have found a lot more to do with perceiving than thinking. There is an organic knowledge that is born only through perception, and a more mechanical (in my view) born of thinking, associating, and rearranging the mental contents. I have found, in my life, that organic knowledge brings change, while mechanical often perpetuates what has come before. My sense of your posts is that they tend to emphasize philosophical concepts over experiential data. I suppose what I'm trying to get at are the experiences, if any, behind the concepts.

Sri Sadhu Om suggests: doing and being. I agree with Cat, though. When I first started reading spiritual things, I saw a lot of contradictions. Over time, I've noticed things become progressively clearer. A simple phrase may have deep layers of meaning that can only unfold over time. One of my favorites is: everything is impermanent.

I see the way. But as the saying goes, just because the sun is out doesn't mean all the snow is melted. I would say there's no constriction, no holding back. When you see the small mind as the mind, this is clear. How can you be constricted? Ignorant, yes. Forgetful, yes. This seems to be more where the problem lies. Actually, I was not fully clear when I said there was nothing else. There is perceiving. Not a feeling of perceiving, this is a perception. You're just restating what I said. Thus, there is agreement. You're missing the point. The point was, there is nothing beyond perception (and perceiving). Adding more perceptions (i.e. thoughts) doesn't establish anything about perception. The point is, you cannot go beyond perception to talk of crazy things like "essence" or "identity" or "bases." You assume a lot, gih. I've noticed a tendency to take a tiny bit of information, and extrapolate. I see you're misinterpreted what I said, and come to a conclusion based on it. I don't blame the misinterpretation, this is the nature of communication. You're right, my process is not refined. It is easy. It is simple. It is using awareness to investigate. Not concepts, theories, or mental tricks. Just observing, watching, noticing. It's not about smart or dumb, fancy or plain. You can talk about patterns of perceptions, and these are not necesarily perceptions. You see a light. Then it is gone. That is impermanance. But you aren't REALLY seeing impermanance. You are seeing a light, light, light, gone. Well, it goes more like this. Eyes open, tree. There was no volition, no process of selection, coloring, or shaping the tree. It is just there. All that other stuff "beautiful sight" "rain" "thunder" this is just adding thought. Soemtimes there are thoughts, sometimes not. But again, not controlled. As you noted earlier, they arise spontaneously. Now, you appear to say that it arises partly of effort. While I admit that what you say here is interesting (and makes me wonder what your experiences actually ARE), I do say I smell ego. Shape, control, change according to will, this is small mind stuff. Does big mind care? But on the other hand, if this was possible, I suppose it would loosen up small mind's grip, if not destroy it. Let me say this point is deferred. But there is no lucid dreaming without realizing one is in a dream. To paraphrase Gurdjieff, how can you change anything unless first you are present? There is some responsibity, I would hope. If you start a process, you should be around to finish the job. This is another big leap, again based on little information. Read again what I wrote, perhaps with some calm passivity. I wouldn't jump in front of the car, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't either. As any good soldier knows, a battle plan usually lasts about five seconds into an actual battle. Your reaction to my words says more about you than about me. And vice versa. Again, I won't play into your options. It's not either/or, choice A or B. I would keep less in mind than what Lin Chi may or may not have done, and more what we can do hereand now. You seem to profess different things at different times, so who knows? You brought up the Buddhas.

Constricting. But only because I can see the limitations. No, this is just mixing up definitions. Experience can refer to a single perceptual moment, multiple, or to an abstract concept. When I was using the word experience, I was using its more abstract meaning, and when I used the word perception, I was using it to refer to specific audio/visual/feeling events. I agree. Well, here is where the confusion sets in. You cannot establish what gives rise to any perception. You have the perception, that is all. Anything that is outside the perception is unknown. You can add mental pictures/concepts/associations to your perception, but that doesn't establish anything. Now, if there was nothing that makes the moon reliably (I leave aside inherent, because how do you perceive inherentness? and permanence because everything changes, eventually the moon will fade away like everything else), how could anyone distinguish between the moon and the sun? Even a tiny child knows the difference. Whether or not there is something "behind" perceptions is unknowable. So to say there is a basis, or not a basis behind a perception is unverifiable, because you can go no further than your perceptions. Now the car is not empty--- if you think so, step in front of it! But it is impermanent, that is to say, subject to change. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in a transitory state, in your perceptions. What do you know of Buddhas? Have you seen them do this? Or is this "conjecture"? Speculating on the minds of the Buddhas cannot be helpful. Do you perceive the inner mind of the Buddha? Yes, but not outside yourself. How else can it be? The rest is concepts. They do not connect to perceptions, and, in my simple mind, appear as mental gymnastics. Bravo! I've said this so myself. There are different levels. But the neo-Advaitans don't talk about this. They just stay in the absolute realm, which is not helpful to people stuck in the relative realm.

This is the trouble mental concepts create. You can get painted into an odd corner. Experience has a basis. The basis is your perception. If I see the moon and say "The moon is the size of a plate," I have a basis (sensory experience), but it would be false. If I see the moon and say "It is made out of the horns of rabbits," I have no basis and it is false. Phenomenon may or may not have an ultimate basis, but would anyone know the difference? And would it even matter? I think you do better than that. Headless for a moment, but not cut off. It returns.

Have you ever seen your ego? If you had, you'd know it is as much "you" as a set of clothes.

Oh, I won't fall into that one either! Just because something is one thing does not necessarily EXCLUDE it from another. It can be baseless AND false. Sadly, the ego traps us, not the other way around. I wish you would cut my head off. It would be less of a bother that way.

Classic, gih, classic. Presenting a false dichotomy as the only solution. The world doesn't fit so easily into an either/or thinking. To humans, mountains may appear to be very stable. To the earth, they may be a ripple on the surface of the earth.

I cannot possibly think of a more clever ego trap than this very line of thinking. A very McEnlightenment attitude: you don't need to do anything, you're just fine as you are. Which is pretty much what a tyrant would say to a slave. If you drive around an airplane, it doesn't do any good if you "know" it can fly. You have to actually fly. It reminds me of a Mullah Nasrudin story: One night, a neighbor strolling by Nasrudin's house found him outside under the street lamp brushing through the dust. "Have you lost something, my friend?" he asked. Nasrudin explained that he had lost his key and asked the neighbor to help him find it. After some minutes of searching and turning up nothing, the neighbor asked him, "Are you sure you lost the key here?" "No, I did not lose it here. I lost it inside the house," Nasrudin answered. "If you lost the key in the house, Nasrudin, why are you looking for it out here?" "Well, there's more light out here, of course," Nasrudin replied.

Sounds like a recipe for imbalance.

Here's the Cliff's Notes version: Fourth Dimensional Satsang

Goldisheavy, For your tireless efforts throughout the Taobums, I hereby award you the title: EGO SNAGGER. You should change your handle to "egoissnagged."

There are also transmissions in the West. One good example is the laying on of hands transmission of the Holy Spirit.