Raymond Wolter

Very interesting. So far, I have only heard negative things about Falun Gong but here is something from someone who has actually practiced it. Anyone else has any experience with Falun? Not Li's weird philosophy but the energy of the form itself? Kenneth Cohen seems to dislike the whole Falun gong thing... And a rebuttal by one of the Dafa members (I guess?)

Thanks Dwai for valuable input. May I ask how you train in water method - through books, or you took a workshop, use a CD etc.? Vipassana is easy for me as there is no intent and just watching. As for water method, I sometimes get caught with the intention part. What is dissolving - is it imagining a block turn into air or smoke, does that happen while inhaling into the organ or exhaling from it, is dissolving different from relaxing like say in yoganidra etc. I really like what Bruce says about water method and am looking for resources to study this method better and refine the practice.

Bob, you may get shot for making such a statement! Are you implying there is a static, unchanging Self? Can there be anything more blasphemous? Namaste

Look at what the Dalai Lama says. Where is the harmony and peace he exhibits in inter-religious dialog among his supposed "followers" here? Most posts made by Buddhists like Vajra here are more on the lines of "your view is flawed, you are incapable of right view, your path is incomplete" etc. Instead, it can be: "Here is what Buddhism is about, here is what the Siddhartha taught, here is what Dzogchen offers". Those with discerning wisdom and inclination will accept and study. The way Buddhism is presented here is extremely repulsive and there can be much better ways of doing that. Just to quote an example, CowTao keeps harping about how people here are "allergic" to Buddhism. It is not that people are "allergic" to Buddhism, some, like myself, are certainly to the way Buddhism is pushed and peddled around here. And folks like Mr. Cow take up cudgels when Vajra is criticized but lack the bones to point out that his ways are devoid of anything faintly skillful in preaching dharma. Any criticism of Vajra's ways and his supporters assume those to be against buddha dharma or lack of objectivity or clinging to belief systems etc. That lack of objectivity is what leads to attitude like Cow's - "Oh I follow Buddhism and agree with its views, Vajra is Buddhist, so I need to side him in every matter for by doing that I reaffirm my own faith in Buddhism". Cow is just an example and mean no offense here but Buddhists here forget to realize that Vajra's brand of Buddhism is not the only one or representing anything ideal. I am a Buddhist myself and here to study and understand Taoism. Though topics related to Buddhism and Hinduism etc are allowed here, why would I want to come to a Taoist forum and keep talking about Buddhism endlessly, point out flaws of Taoism, and parrot dependent origination to the point of nausea? A Buddhist topic once in a while is okay but what are Cow and Vajra and the likes doing here if they know it all and are interested in Buddhism alone and have concluded other views to be flawed? Its like abusing the courteous nature of the host and stamping him all over simply because he is nice no? If Buddhism is all they are interested in, would not it make more sense to be on a Buddhist forum? I have never seen them ask questions but only offer advice or correct the rest or preach. So with that kind of attitude, how can there be a genuine exchange of information? And THIS hits the nail in contrast to the other merit badge handed over to Vajra unconditionally as the TRUE Ambassador of Dharma on the big bad www.

My questions for him are: 1. SFQ is generally advertised as a medical qigong system. So what is the Alchemy part of SFQ? Is it limited to physical and mental health or is aimed at Kan & Li, fusion and other stages of alchemy? 2. What is his opinion on Kundalini and practices that try to pro-actively awaken Kundalini? 3. What is his idea of Enlightenment, if he believes there is such a state? And does his SFQ system take one there by itself? 4. If one were to practice only one exercise from his system, which would it be and is it by chance the small orbit? 5. Does he recommend reverse breathing all the time or frequently i.e. even when not doing SFQ exercises. 6. What is the importance of transmission in his practice? Not needed, comes with the video/audio or it is better to get one from him at a seminar to enhance the quality of one's practice. 7. What is his take on water method vs fire method? Does his system fall into the category of fire method mainly? 8. For those that cannot achieve the lotus posture, is there an alternative that can give the same benefit?

I don't get your point? What are you trying to say? Your problem is with the usage of the word 'real'? I still didn't hear dependent origination and anatta thrown in yet or sutras quoted, or I missed them? I can sense it coming and this thread growing into another...well never mind Drew, good info and practical info. It helps to read something practical at times and not get jumbled with no-duality and speak from a plane which is the result of practice rather than from the plane of practice aka duality which is where most of us are at. Talking too much of the what happens after the non-dual state is accomplished distracts one from practice and talking of it is at best a fluff of words. Appreciate such useful posts.

Thanks everyone for your valuable inputs. From what I understand, the Water method involves the specific intent to let go and dissolve whereas Vipassana is all about staying aware, moment to moment. Here is an interesting book which follows the Vipassana approach but aims at dissolving energy blockages - Life Force Chi moves with the mind - and so the author prescribes just being aware of the blockage and without any specific intent to clear it, change it or mess with it. Makes sense, does it not? And the dissolving happens without a specific effort or force aimed towards dissolving per say. Here is some interesting discussion on the Water Method on Robert Bruce's forum.

Dear Tao Bums, I have been reading a book on Mantras and had some questions on how and if they work. 1. Has someone here had any experiences with Mantras? a. If yes, are they mostly about calming, feeling some energy and the likes? b. Or more like vision of a deity, Kundalini, healing etc.? 2. Are there Taoist Mantras? What are their applications? Are they similar to Hindu mantras i.e. invoke the energies of deities/archetypes? 3. What is the Buddhist view on Mantras? I guess then it would have to be Theravada and Vajrayana considered separately? Theravada - Mantras here, like Buddho are mainly Shamata practices and nothing more I guess. Breath, Kasina, mantra all have similar goals. Vajrayana - Have more to do with energy work, similar to Hindu mantras in the sense they invoke deities/buddhas/archetypes. Used for more than Shamata like earning virtues (how does chanting mantra earn virtue, not sure!), healing, escaping dangers etc. - So, mantras in Hinduism and Tibetan Buddhism are more than just points of concentration and are seeds of power which can accomplish what may seem extraordinary and transform reality. So what is the TTB take on mantras? Simply ways to calm the mind or get into deeper states like TM/Mahesh Yogi taught (or the Theravada way). Or is there more to them as in seeds of power, connection to deities/archetypes etc.? Thanks to all in advance.

I have heard some very good things about Hieu Doan. Anyone has actual experience with this program or attending a retreat with Hieu? I am told the audio program comes with an etheric attunement, I don't understand what that means though

Thanks Hundun.. Sloppy or others, I have been reading Vol 1 of the Water Method and I don't completely "get it". Would you think the Tao of Letting Go audio program will be helpful in better understanding the method?

I have done several retreats with Goenkaji and also with Ajahn Brahm schools of Vipassana. Personally feel greater affinity towards body sweeping than noting. Lately have been exploring Taoist meditation and find that using focus on lower dantien during anapana makes me feel more grounded and has helped with some physical issues like migraine, allergy etc. As I read Bruce's books on Water method, I sometimes wonder if he is simply teaching Vipassana but with modifications such as breathing into the organ etc.? In one of the two volumes, it is also said that his teacher was Buddhist. But he was Chinese and I don't know if the Burmese/Thai styles of Vipassana are used/known in China? Frankly, I don't clearly understand Bruce's technique. Still trying to figure out what he explains in the book.

A big fan of the series here, watch it on Netflix every now and then. I was planning to watch the 2D version but it seems like a bad idea Thanks Craig

Thank you. Does that mean the results/goals of both practices are different?

Right there is the first difference - of techniques.

:lol:

Positive? It's like I get a bout of food poisoning intentionally and throw up zillion times to cleanse my stomach. There are better ways of achieving that IMO. Btw there was no existing irritation or restlessness that you assumed this recording brought out. Like you have demonstrated before, you don't take criticism on anything faintly associated with Buddhism well. Whatever. I don't want this to turn into one of your Buddhist music is better than Hindu music thread. Thanks!

Can't feel anything at all in this Sutra chanting, actually got irritated and restless but the Omdasji CD blew my head. Some very powerful energies there. Felt calm, focussed and still. Hands were tingling with chi and all the headache from the sutra video was gone. Scotty, thanks brother.

Thanks Pero. This is clearly reflective of what I have heard from many Lamas and texts of Vajrayana, be it Dzogchen or Mahamudra. Gold will probably disagree with a part of this. Ajahn Chah says something very similar to what Gold wrote here, let me see if I can find his quote. So clearly there are two opinions on the subject of Yanas.

Thanks Gold. Very clear indeed.

That is exactly my question. If the goal is the same realization of Emptiness/Pratityasamutpada for all the teachings and sub-teachings, how does one, let's say for practical purposes, distinguish between high and low? 1. A person is capable of both Mahayana and Vajrayana. Does that make both the paths "same" for him considering neither is relatively "high" or "low" with respect to each other for him? 2. Or is "high" and "low" determined on the basis of side-effects like Mikael pointed out? Jalus, Rainbow body, Siddhis, higher Kayas etc.? 3. Or is it mostly the Arhatship vs Bodhisattva vs Buddhahood that differentiates between high/low teachings? Another question I implied earlier was whether the yanas were of progressive nature? In other words, if one takes the yana system of Vajrayana, Hinayana and Sutrayana are used as precursors to Mantra and Tantra yanas using these yanas as preperatory steps to get to Vajrayana, Atiyoga and other supposedly "higher" teachings. So there is a well defined hierarchy on one side and on the other side there is also the same realization at the end of each of the yanas. Other than the relative highness or lowness of teaching based on what works for who and how well, there is no real hierarchy in these yanas - Is that what you are suggesting here? Thank you.

Gold, those were not my own conclusions. The text is from Longchen Rabjam's Dzogchen discourse translated by Tulku Thondup. I am just quoting them here to clarify my understanding. So they don't necessarily reflect my conclusion or knowledge/cluelessness of this topic.

So all about the three Yanas of Buddhism; do they mean anything more than different paths to the same goal? If Dependent Oritigination/Emptiness/Pratityasamutpada is the goal of all the three Yanas, then how can one Yana be superior to the other? Even if one speaks in terms of simply the speed? What can be a useful and skillful means for one need not be for another. So if one is simply sticking to Shamata+Vipassana routine the Theravadain style, is he at a disadvantage compared to the another following Vajrayana? If so, why and how? What really is the significance of the three Yanas? Or they simply represent different points in the historical development of Buddhism? I do not know about Theravadin Pali suttas but certain Vajrayana tantras and Dzogchen/Mahamudra texts criticize Theravadin and sometimes even Sutra based Mahayana methods as inferior and leading to a lower realization. Should one take such comparisons seriously at all? Thanks. Googling ...both Vajra and Mikael seem correct in their own ways...

Thanks for mentioning this book. Any other such treatments of Vipassana? I have read suttas and traditional commentaries etc. but are there books such as these on Shamata and Vipassana?