Otis

I probably should have used the word Kensho, instead of Satori. I disagree about the frequency of nondual experience, though. I would be surprised if most people in the world did not, at some time or another, have nondual experience. They might not call it that, they might not put it together with any tradition, but it is merely one state of human consciousness. It easily (if accidentally) happens between wake and sleep, when really tired, in "the zone", in novel situations, on substance, or even reading a book. Once out of nonduality, it is quickly forgotten, because there's no memory formed in the moment, just of the impression it left. IMO, the practitioner just has considerably more of that experience than most. It seems to me, too, that many people who come to Taoism or Buddhism, do so because they have had some experiences, and want some context for them. That's the story I've heard many times on this and other forums.

I agree completely. One of the mistakes I made early on, was to start acting as if there shouldn't be egos. As if the proper route toward freedom was not to connect to others' egos. Of course, I realized that wasn't getting me anywhere, that paying attention to myself as ego helped me learn what other egos are looking for. Connect to them where they are at, rather than act from some principles of "no ego". That said, my easiest relating happens when I connect to someone else as energy, through play or tantric connection. But there are only a few situations in which others are likely to engage with me on those levels (like the dance floor, the bedroom, when goofing off with friends, deep conversation, etc.). And even those who can and will connect to me like that, usually soon revert back into the defend/control/power games of ego. The difficulty exists partially because others form expectations, and are disappointed when I am off, living my energetic life, and not fulfilling those expectations for them. For example, I have excellent dance relationships with many wonderful beings, and I think there is real love expressed in the connection. But then, if I neglect to dance with that person (because I'm living the flow of the moment), all of a sudden it is no longer a relationship of energy, but one of disappointment and rejection, with karmic repercussions. It is the gulf between wanting to live as authentically and purely as possible, without preconception or preference, vs. wanting to keep people that I love* happy, which I am straddling, and still trying to learn. *or people that I need, like my boss.

Just like the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao, so too, the human who can be defined as an -ist, is not the true human. I don't see freedom in being any -ist, because it's just new conditioning to replace the old. If our goal is to surrender the conceptual and follow an internal path, then any naming of that path, grounds it back in the conceptual realm. Taoism and Buddhism serve me as fingers that point toward the moon. Making the fingers important seems to miss the gloriousness of what it's like to live with the moon as my lover.

Great observation, Mr. Pillar. In my own exploration of panic, I find that much of my anxiety plays out in my body. Stretching has actually been one of the greatest stress reducers I've experienced (especially stretching in the steam room!). IME, emotional stress + physical tension = suffering, but emotional stress without my body resisting it, I find to be more of an adventure.

My apologies, Michael. I worded that poorly.

Surfing Buddha, Fizik, Ya Mu, your responses are very valid. I have made most of the same points in my above caveats. I was writing purely about my point of view, with no attempt at describing "reality". I am not trying to change anyone's mind about Lomax, just sharing an opinion. For those of you who are supporters of Lomax, I wish you well, and I hope you continue to derive much value from his teachings. And to Lomax: I don't know you, and I don't wish you any harm, especially if you are, indeed, legit. I will look elsewhere to find inspiration, but we each must find our own paths, no?

Very well said, as usual.

Yeah, I agree with that. Another nomenclature break-down could be "sense" vs. "perception", maybe? Perception is story, no doubt. And I agree that it is listening to the raw data which is really powerful. Listening to story may be useful, as well, but just in terms of unwinding and debunking the story. In terms of learning to be authentic, the less "how, why, what, where, who", the better.

Dear Michael, Thank you for the invitation to critique your media. I have been hesitant to write in details, not because I'm trying to be elusive, but because I'm trying not to be mean. My critique will sound harsh, but not because I have "ulterior motives", but because I honestly did not enjoy your works, or find them useful. On the other hand, I have dropped mentions over the last couple pages, which suggest what I did not like about the media. Perhaps I should not have, perhaps I should have just kept my opinions to myself, keep the peace with my fellow Bums. But I did not do so, so I guess I'm immersed in this now. Of course, my critique is not for you. I think you'll be offended, but I doubt that you will benefit from my words. There is nothing constructive in them. My critique would only be for other consumers, so they can make up their mind based upon all the available reports, rather than just the ones that favor your materials. I can give a thousand caveats, about why my opinion is colored by ignorance. I am not a critic of masters. I don't know you in person, I have never taken your courses, I have never even conversed with you, here on Tao Bums. I do not know Michael Lomax, at all. All I am responding to is 1. what you wrote, and 2. the impression of you I got from the DVD. To answer your question, I did not practice what you teach. My critique is NOT saying that you have nothing to teach, or that the methods don't work, because I have no idea. I have not responded directly to that question, because it is irrelevant to my critique. To be clear, again, I am NOT saying that there is no value in the book and DVD. I am saying merely that I found no value in the book, and that the DVD turned me off from considering you as a masterful teacher. About the book: as I mentioned above, SiliconValley's critique of the book very much matches my experience of it. The book had plenty of wild stories in it, interesting in a Castaneda sort of way. But there was nothing in the book, which distinguished for me, the difference between "this guy has done amazing things" and "this guy is making this all up". How am I supposed to recognize truth in what sounds exactly like a fantasy? Am I, as the reader, expected to just believe everything you write, when I have no compelling reason to do so? All of that aside, I still read the book with zeal, thinking that at some point, there was going to be something in it, which connected directly with me. When reading Bruce Frantzis' book (and those of several other masterful teachers), every single page is full of material that makes me nod in agreement, and even shout out "yes, yes"! But I did not have that experience with your book at all. The only statement that I recognized as real wisdom was "there are always more levels". Again, I fully acknowledge that this does not mean that there wasn't wisdom there, which I just did not recognize. It just means that there wasn't anything for me, which is my sole point. There are so many teachers, so much source material, in this world, that of course I must make some choices based upon my biases. I do not pretend to be above them, or in any way "objective". But I must make my choices not to waste time with teachers who do not seem to have anything to feed me. If I had felt at all "fed", then I would not be making this critique. And, of course, that brings me to the DVD. This critique is the one I'm more afraid to make, because it is much more personal, based upon your appearance. Again, not to claim that I can watch someone on a video, and derive from that, an accurate sense of their mastery. But rather, like I mentioned above, I do still have to use some discernment, not to chase down blind alleys. Had I seen mastery in your movement, then I would not be making this critique. I have been doing energy work for about a decade now, and I have seen its powerful transformative work. I know how liberating Qi Gung can be, how powerful, graceful and dynamic movement becomes, with authentic understanding of the self as energy. How exciting it was, then to get to watch a master do it, and learn from the source. And so I popped in the DVD, and started watching. But this teacher, this Michael Lomax guy, did not come across as someone who understood his own body. He had no apparent grace, no power. He seemed a stranger to his own anatomy, with a terrible posture and a very bound torso. He did movements, but without the grounded authenticity that I recognize from Qi work. He moved his arms up and down, but the rest of his body was not connected to that movement. He seemed more like an SNL parody of a Qi Gung teacher, than a real master. (Maybe this is because you have overcome great physical obstacles, have improved a radically deformed body, or something, but I have no such context, from which to soften my impression). So, yes, this is very harsh, which is why I have not posted it yet. I'm sorry to say these words to your face, and would not have done so if you had not directly invited me to. (That said, as a person who calls himself a teacher, and sells your instructions, I do not think you have the right to be above criticism). So again, I am not saying that you are not what you claim to be, or that your materials or seminars are not useful to some. I am merely speaking about (my impression of) what you said and did in your media. That is all I have to go on (and your posts in this thread, which I find, sadly, to be rather defensive). I am very devoted to my energy work, and so I am interested in finding real masters to illuminate the path before me. But I still have to choose who I call teacher, and my choice still has to be made, based upon available information. Since the book had almost no recognizable wisdom, and the DVD had no recognizable mastery, then I am not at all drawn toward you, as a teacher. Since I hear other people making the choice to spend money on the media, based upon positive reports, and I hear people with negative reports censoring themselves, then I think that my report may help give a more balanced view on this thread. That is why I'm contributing, not because I think that I am doing you any favors with my critique. Again, I am sorry for being so harsh in my criticism. I do not like the idea of making enemies, or creating ill will, here on TTB. If you were not on these boards, I would have made my criticism a while back (instead of just offering to pass on my copies). The above statements are as accurate to my experience of your work, as possible. I am not claiming that anything is truth, just offering my honest feedback, which you asked for. Peace.

Totally agreed.

Quite possible.

I appreciate it, Hundun. I'm still meditating on whether to say more about the material, or not. I know perfectly well that part of my reaction is based on appearances, and I see the limitations in that. On the other hand, one does hope that a master will exhibit his mastery somehow, whether in the form of words that resonate with truth, or through a body that resonates with Qi. That may mean, of course, that I'm just missing the truth and the mastery, that it's so subtle as to go over my head. But I do feel like I gave both book and DVD a thorough inspection, with as much good intent as possible, before coming to my conclusion.

Of course I don't know what you're going through, Zhang. But the "all eyes on me" part does remind me of a transition phase that I have been going through for awhile. As I am learning ways of surrendering "me", it is even more painful when I suddenly crash back into "me" again, whereas before when I was "me" all the time, I never noticed it. Nothing crashes me back into me, like self-consciousness. My internal alarm of "how am I perceived?" can kick my ass, because it plummets me out of authenticity back into ego habits. I think that is why I feel called to practice authenticity in public. Most of my major practices arise only when I am visible to others, not because I want to be seen, but precisely because part of me does not. Because then it is also practice for surrendering self-consciousness.

As you already know, I often feel like a bit of an oddball (because of my practice?). In particular, there is some chaos between the recognition that "the people that I believe in are the people that exist in my head" and the other recognition that "nonetheless, other people do still exist". In other words, once I chose to see "other people" as a fiction, then I now have nothing to fill the gap. Other people still appear and disappear, and I believe that they do, in fact, exist, in some form or another. But they are not what I've been relating to; that's been my story of other people. Without the story, I no longer have the same reference as before, and it does make many relationships difficult. I think, in time, that it will work itself out, but the transition is clumsy.

In my experience, new freedom inevitably gives rise to (temporary) new chaos. It's like the structure of the body, in which everything is designed to balance everything else out. So, when some muscles are too tight, then other muscles become atrophied as consequence. If the tight muscles finally surrender, then the atrophied muscles may become freaked-out (go into spasm), until they become educated enough to balance the new freedom. That's also how I've experienced the process of freeing the rest of me. Odd stuff pops up out of nowhere, causing some havoc, until I learn to accept and understand it. In most cases, it's just becoming aware of what was already there, but which some part of me was hiding from view (avoidance, self-blindness).

That's not what happened at all. I don't know why you're projecting that on me. I read SiliconValley's critique, which I thought was incredibly accurate, so I said so. I found the DVD to be even less useful to me, and mentioned so. That's all. I don't know you or Lomax, and have no bone to pick. I was excited about getting into the book and DVD, but was very disappointed, when I did. I am only being honest about my opinion, because other people are choosing, based upon reviews. Is it wrong not to be impressed by something? Must I be a trouble-starter, because I have a different opinion than you?

Listen, I don't mean any disrespect to you or to the author of the book and DVD. I am more than willing to give a full critique of the book and DVD, but I'm also wary, because I know that Lomax is active on this thread. I think it is worthwhile that I give my (negative) review, because I think it is useful for consumers to hear all points of view, but I also don't like the idea of creating enemies or engendering hard feelings, here on TTB. Let me know if you (or Ya Mu) would like me to explain what I did not like about the book and DVD.

double post

.

Another awesome share, Ulises, keep it up!

What I think is important: that you are paying attention and being honest with yourself. Growth is always going to be messy; being willing to stay present throughout the changes, that's what's going to keep you on the front edge of the curve.

I own Lomax's book and DVD, and am ready to pass them on. Please message me, if you'd like me to send them to you. Just pay postage.

Too bad. I think it was a very good question, and a useful one to engage with.