Jeff

Welcome. Your presence is appreciated,

Freeform above has given a pretty good overview. Yang Qi is the energy of focused intent. As Dawei described it is like a transmission (or outgoing flow) of the mind. One does not really feel it, but more feels the resistance of it “hitting” other energy structures stored in body. The more obstructed (issues and fears), the greater the body reactions to the energy. What people call kundalini with big motions and shakes is yang energy starting to break down big subconscious issues. Yin energy is really more like “reception” to the transmission/yang side. On a relative basis it is sort of like “pulling” in the energy. While they are not really two different forms of energy, it can feel that way in the early stages, as it is really more two different polarity views of the same underlying energy flow. Also, yin aspects are easier to notice when interacting with others as the local mind tends to notice its own thoughts and hence own transmissions. So to really feel yin one tends to need to have reached the level where they can energetically connect to other people and the environment, as with noticing the outside stuff coming in, you can notice the reception side more easily. This is why traditions often describe it as a “higher” or more advanced energy form. A strong “yin energy” person can create a strong “pulling” on a beginner which sort of makes it easier for them to feel and notice their own outgoing transmission/yang. Energetically men tend to be more yang and women more yin (but this is not always the case). Finding a balanced partner can dramatically accelerate ones growth as a purification loop can be established with the two end polarities. This dynamic is why traditions like Buddhism (and others) show advanced stuff as Buddha and consort (or dakini).

Curious about what? If not "life" or existence...

I see it a little differently. More saying birds and beasts “are” themselves (simply beings), while we are not the body (or contained within it). Like Mark said, no “need” for such an abode.

Life has no meaning for you? Not curious at all? I am very curious. Probably one of issues...

Because you do not want to?

Guess it depends on how you define “light”, but yes, you describe Shen, Qi as Jing as sort of layers of “attached” light.

Jing, Qi and Shen were never really separated. More like more refined views of the same thing. Sort of layers within layers.

Superimpose your perceptions on what? The pic? Also, I would agree that spirituality is in the eye of the beholder. All perceptions are...

Not sure I really understand what you are trying to say? Yes, I follow your logic thread, but writing it does not necessarily mean any form of accurate perception. It could be... a - walked by a snake. b - experienced being scared by a snake c - perceive that snakes are scary d - write down that since snakes are dangerous and scary, one should avoid them. But, it was always really just a piece of rope laying there that you thought was a snake....

Perception is perception. Writings are writings. The problem is when one maps their perception to something they have read. Trying to map into some writing without the actual direct perception. If they are not first hand experiences, then one is simply reading a text.

Hi Rene, I would have to disagree a little about th Tao Te Ching. For me it is one of the most spiritually advanced writings available in the world today. It is also sublime in how it can be read at so many different levels. An excellent example of it can be found in chapter 28. It clearly states the layers/levels of realization all the way to being a “ruler” immortal. Such is not found anywhere else in any writing that I have ever seen. Best, Jeff

Some interesting points, but in my view you have strung together a bunch of different types of issues under the same label and that makes it very difficult to discuss, as their is not one answer to your concept. As an example, Jesus did lay out a methodology, but his teachings were “corrupted” by an institutional framework that was trying to build an empire. The last thing the Roman Empire wanted was a bunch of independent “un-attached” thinkers running around. Also, not all realizations are of the same level. What Eckhart Tolle has realized is no where in the same realm as Jesus. If one has truly realized, they can not just teach it, but they can actual show and share a “taste” of it. This is why there are so many stories of Buddha telling people to just stay with him for extended periods.

No, turning the light around is more about one becoming "one with the light". It is sort of like a quantum jump from "seeing" (and light being reflective on other/dualistic things) to more "being" one with all. Open or closed eyes does not make any difference. Also, at that point mediation would be the same as normal daily living because one has broken down the perceptions in mind where you think that they are somehow different states.

Both are very short to read, but vastly deep in what they have the potential to convey.

If you are looking for more of those parallels, then take a look at the teachings of Jesus in the gospel of Thomas... 50. Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where have you come from?' say to them, 'We have come from the light, from the place where the light came into being by itself, established [itself], and appeared in their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?' say, 'We are its children, and we are the chosen of the living Father.' If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'" Then read the Heart Sutra. If one realizes that Form = Motion, and Rest = Void/Emptiness, it becomes a little more clear...

I think it is easier to draw the parallels with God and Emptiness itself than Dharmakaya. The Dharamakaya is not a separate “thing”, but more an aspect of the “Buddha body”. To me, the crossover would go better with being an aspect of being a “son of God” and would be part of the “oneness with the father”, or embodying/realizing emptiness.

I am confused, did you not say above that a Satguru was not simply playing out of a movie like a normal person? And if so, does that not imply independent action (or free will)?

Agreed. Empty, but still potential. The motion of nothingness.

Sure it is... Chapter FOUR The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled. Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things! Blunt the sharpness, Untangle the knot, Soften the glare, Merge with dust. Oh, hidden deep but ever present! I do not know from whence it comes. It is the forefather of the ancestors. The Tao being “empty” is the point itself, and also why it cannot be “named”.

Is it an expanded “One”, or could it also be interpreted as a new One? Kind of like new “sentiment beings” bubble up (or waves deliver) a new “individual” One all the time?

So a Satguru makes independent decisions and actions? I didn’t realize that and had thought was more avatar like, and not similar to a sage with independence. Is that the case with a Jivamukta too? I didn’t say anything about the power being limited, they are more just layers. Also, if you check out the various versions listed on the forum here... You will see that they all pretty much talk about the four great parts all being “great”.

Let us actually look at chapter 25 of the TTC in it’s entirety.... 25Something mysteriously formed, born before Heaven and Earth. In silence and from within the void. Alone and constant, ever present and flowing. It is the Mother of the Ten Thousand Things. I do not know its name, so I call it Dao. For lack of a better word I call it great. Being great it flows. It nourishes the Ten Thousand Things far and away. From whence it came I do not know. Therefore the Dao is great. Heaven is great. Earth is great. The Ten Thousand Things are great. These are the four great powers of the Universe, And one of them is the Ten Thousand Things. Man follows the Earth. Earth follows Heaven. Heaven follows the Dao. Dao is what is natural. As the TTC states, there are four great powers in the universe... Man, Earth, Heaven and Dao. The Dao is the mother that gives birth and nourishes. Is a man/ten thousand things one of the four great powers in Brahman/Hindu based systems, or is it seen more like just a movie that is playing out?

I think your attempt to try do directly compare Brahman to the Dao is very challenging, and like you said with the Buddhists, it may drive many Daoists nuts too.

Yes, I know there are not multiple Brahmans in Hinduism. I am saying that with the Tao is in a Taoist framework, it would translate like that. There is no concept of universal Self/Brahman (or biggest) in Taoism (or Buddhism). In Buddhist terms, Buddha stated it as Brahman was a “God” that followed his lead when ultimate emptiness was realized (or a subset that could be affected and changed/directed).