Defining Immortality and Enlightenment

[Cameron]

How would you define these lofty goals? Is one different than the other? Is one a mistranslation of ancient teachings?

 

Immortality for the most part seems to be linked to Enlightenment by some teachers and considered a higher or lower stage by others.

 

Winn clearly thinks it is a higher stage involving the development of a "Yang Body". When asked to define the yang body in a retreat Winn said most people have a "Yin body" this is what people use during OBE's or remote viewing. With a yin body you are still in our body but your consciousness can go to other places.

 

Then he said if you develop yang body you actually go to those other places. So, like a Taoist Immortal doesn't have an OBE he actually goes to wherever he wants.

 

Then some people compare this to the rainbow body in Buddhism .

 

Bill Bodri throws a different view that even the development of the yang body is a low stage of the path that does not come close to enlightenment(annutarasomyaksombhodi)which is the complete "dropping" of the self, complete freedom from suffering and conditioning etc etc.

 

Then other alchemy teachers like the Australian Brynn Orr say it's not about creating a yang body but waking up to those levels of the self that already exist.

 

And...Ken Cohen says the word immortal is a mistranslation that actually stands for a person connected with nature. When you let go the seperate ego self you live as long as nature does as you are connected with it etc etc. But not really about devleoping a yang body per se.

 

Man, I am regretting doing this thread already. I suspect some of you think very differently about this subject and perhaps to be more honest about it we mostly don't know?

[cloud recluse]

 

Man, I am regretting doing this thread already. I suspect some of you think very differently about this subject and perhaps to be more honest about it we mostly don't know?

 

 

 

Man, I am regretting doing this thread already. I suspect some of you think very differently about this subject and perhaps to be more honest about it we mostly don't know?

DO NOT regret this thread This is EXACTLY the kind of debate I look to Tao Bums for ,especially as a newbie! And while I dont KNOW the truth on these matters,they strike enough of a chord to inspire actual practice in me.So I wanna see all the learned opinions of Daoists far more experinced than me.This is a GREAT idea for a thread ! Regards,Cloud.

[sunshine]

I have no answer but there is still the question why anybody wants to achieve immortality or enlightenment...?

 

I mean: either people feel life to be sooooooooooooooooooo interesting always, enjoying it every moment that they do want to extend this oooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr actually they come from the not so good places and always felt there must be something more to life than what they are usually faced with...

 

to me first of all getting to a place where I feel completely comfortable with myself, situations & others... a place I feel completely free, where the "me" is not a ball thrown around by my monkey mind and monkey emotions is the major aspect for training in "the arts" and further a certain curiosity if something like immortiality is possible (which can only be proven by experience -OWN experience- I believe)...

 

Harry

[mbanu]

How would you define these lofty goals? Is one different than the other? Is one a mistranslation of ancient teachings?

 

I'm starting to feel like a broken record, here.

 

But I guess that just means I should elaborate, instead of putting "immortality is immortality and enlightenment is enlightenment" in big bold capital letters. So here's elaborating.

 

Immortality is immortality. Really to honest goodness seriously. The big reasons people get stuck about this is because more than likely their teachers aren't immortal, which tends to disconcert people, and they're also familiar with the fact that Taoism is surrounded by layer upon layer of bullshit mysticism (some for good reasons, some for bad) so the first impulse is to not take a thing at its face value.

 

The reason that the teachers aren't immortal is because unless they come from an unbroken lineage, there's a good chance they don't know the whole formula or the important details yet. Take the Mantak Chia/Michael Winn/Eric Yudelove/Other-People-in-the-Circle school. They focus on creating Heavenly Immortals. They've got the general ideas down. (Jing to qi, qi to shen, shen to um... immortal spirit body??) but they aren't quite 100 percent clear on the details on how to make this happen when complications arise, and they don't address what to do with the immortal foetus once it's formed whatsoever (important things such as feeding it once it has no body to mooch off of, for instance). Most of the material is there, it just hasn't been put together yet so things are still up in the air. (I'd be interested in seeing if doing bone packing through the spirit body might be a step in the right direction, but I don't do Heavenly Immortal practices, myself. ) Also, the teachers have th same problem as the students, they confuse the different styles of immortality practice, so they end up going in circles a bunch, and they confuse enlightenment and immortality qi gong and sorcery all into this undifferenciated mass in general, which exaggerates the problem.

 

Enlightenment is enlightenment. A few things tend to sucker people here. One is that they strive for higher enlightenment generally even when they don't need it. But that's like taking insulin when you aren't diabetic or going on really strong painkillers when really all you needed was an aspirin. The reason that both Buddhist and Daoist enlightenment practices are structured like they are is to prevent overdoses. Too much enlightenment can fuck up a person if they don't need it. And since they keep on running into dead ends, they start to think maybe enlightenment is another one of those Daoist mind games, and that it actually means "break boards with your penis".

 

The other is that they confuse Buddhist and Daoist enlightenment practices, and generally get sucked up into Buddhism. Not a problem or anything, but it tends to confuse others. Buddhist enlightenment and Daoist enlightenment are two different solutions to the exact same problem. (And also entirely different than immortality practices. ) To use a crappy anology, to a man drowning in the ocean, Buddhism is land, and Daoism is a boat.

Edited April 15, 2006 by mbanu

[sean]

Good one Cam. Tough.

 

I would say that enlightenment is the "answer" to the question "Who am I?". The paradox being that the answer is beyond concepts, including the concept that it's beyond concepts. Intellectually, I "grasp" at understanding enlightenment by thinking of it as the ground of awareness that both holds and is what it holds.

 

I think the masculine tendency is to seek the "ground of awareness" side of the equation; at best stillness, emptiness and freedom from that which arises within it's space. Whereas the femine tendency is to identify with the manifesting isness of phenomenon; at best light, flow, and love.

 

I don't know much about "Immortality", particulary how the term was used historically by Taoists. My understanding is that in the transrational sects it was understood as a metaphor for fully identifying with that which does not die. I imagine there were probably some prerational sects trying to create physically immortal bodies though. Bodri is probably, rightly, criticizing the latter.

 

Although it's possible there may be an even more advanced conception of immortality. Sri Aurobindo, for instance, talked about a theoretical stage of enlightenment that only becomes possible at a certain point in actual, physiological evolution. In this stage, Godhead can so totally unite with one's material being, that "God becomes flesh", so to speak. Even then, this doesn't mean that the physical being "lives forever" or is even freed from aging, injury, or sickness. IMO it's pointing to a new possibility of incarnational nonduality, as paradoxical as that might sound or even be.

 

Sean

[thelerner]

I think in terms of 3 kinds of enlightenment. Psychological, example would be Eckhardt Tolle, a serene being in the Now. Next Physical enlightenment, Glenn Morris, heck most HT stuff are examples; having strong and continuous energy flow in the meridians. A state where inner energy circulation manifests as greater health, awareness and vitality.

 

Third would be Western enlightenment. A state where you are simply happy with your job, family and general life. Mundane, but very important.

 

Immortality(classical), we don't seem to have living immortals around as role models. They appear in history almost as myths, but they're simply not living now(paradoxically) and weren't able or chose not to teach such skills to there disciples. There are many recently deceased very high level masters of many disciplines who aged gracefully, reached enlightenment and croaked like a frog.

 

I think practices can make you live better, healthier, a bit longer. Even give you a sense of eternity and oneness, but when the bodies warranty is up, there are no deposits, no returns.

 

Michael

Edited April 16, 2006 by thelerner

[Ian]

Here's mine:

 

Enlightenment is realising that the real part/aspect of you is immortal.

 

Immortality is creating a vehicle so pure so that that realisation can be embodied as continuously as you want.

 

My impression is that both have stages/levels.

 

Hubba hubba,

I

[cloud recluse]

Ok,heres my attempt. Enlightenment is the dropping away of the self-project,the constant theme of trying to freeze everything,including transpersonal states,into a self-image,a Final Solution to experiences constant flux.A deep inner contraction finally lets go,gives up on its constant manipulation of experience,stops generating noise,and a vivid Emptiness becomes obvious as Self.A deep fundamental stress dissolves,and specific restrictive conditioning drops,letting energy in on its own terms,not the egos. So now theres all this energy rampaging through the body,lots of fun!Now the body has to accomadate it,come up to its level with real physiological change. In theory,is there any limit to this adaption ? Could the 'immortalising' of body energy be the 'game' of the enlightened,pursued as an angst free experiment into lifes possibilty,with no gurantee of success,living 'as' an Immortal,simply to express Enlightenment ? Everone 'plays' with energy,but the enlightened perhaps take it in a radical direction free of conventional limits ? Have never met any physical immortals,and grasping for it seems neurotic at best,but the symbol seems to forebode something.None of that Alchemy seems necessary for the dropping of duality,but does it predispose its practitioners to a particular direction post-enlightenment? Whats all that Alchemy finally for ? Does it set up a new direction that Enlightenment then catalyzes ? Fearfully awaiting the responses of actual practitioners,Cloud.

[cloud recluse]

Christ Im longwinded !

[cloud recluse]

Jeeze you're good too!

Awww shucks

[cloud recluse]

Got to admit though that theres nothing original in my definition of Enlightenment.Im more interested ,in this context,of a possible interptretation of 'Immortality'.It occurs too frequently in Daoism to be a mere mistranslation.Not an Alchemical practitioner myself(my 2 attempts to implement Yoganis Spinal Pranayama got too intense ),but Im interested to see if all this Internal jiggery-pokery sets up a particular disposition in the practitioner that Enlightenment then accelerates or fulfills in some way.When an Alchemist "gets" Enlightened (I know thats crude,but stay with me),would their post-enlightenment behaviour and capacities be DISTINCTLY different than an Enlightened accountant,fishmonger,renunciate ascetic,musician,chiroprctor... etc? Regards,Cloud