David Shen Verdesi Press Release

[DentyDao]

Sean,thanks for answering.interesting read.I liked what was written about no thougt arising.I belive that is the key for getting the real results

 

It's true; and when your gong becomes good/stable, you can begin to return the Shen and the 'King' can return to his house. It is the great work. The mind has become the master and does not know its place is really to be the servant. So, Zu ji will help you to bring your own mind under control and use all your resources to do so, not just Xing which is only one half of the pie; and then the real work can begin; the return of the King.

 

But make no mistake, this transmission has nothing to do with shamatha or vipasana or any other Buddhist or Hindu methods or paradigm; it is unique to the Daoist tradition totally. To forge the Dan Tian, in the alchemical sense that it is used above is a process that is not found in Buddhism or India or Tibet, with due exception of some remote anomaly perhaps. These more popular and widely known systems have different goals and different purposes in many cases. In any case, they use totally different methods, so it is important to draw a distinction.

[Buddy]

Buddy,

You cannot judge the validity of Sean's school based solely on a video posted on an online messageboard.

 

Moniker guy,

I can and do.

 

"The people you speak of could just as easily be pulling the rug over peoples eyes as could Sean's teachers, or his teachers could be the real deal and your empty flower friends could be the fakes, or they could all be people who have acheived something that most only see in wuxia."

 

C'mon,

Martial artists regularly test each other. I've met up with a number of folks on EF and none were but they claimed to be.

 

"Personally anyone who claims supernatural abilities is suspect simply because there are so many convincing frauds out there, convincing at least until you see an illusionist demonstrate how a particular trick was done. But, any logical skeptic has to point out that lack of evidence is not evidence of absence,"

 

Sorry, this is faulty logic. Everyone dies. Do we need to test everyone to believe this?

 

"so....we'll all just have to see what comes of the research that Sean claims is being undertaken, if, of course, he is telling the truth (he is some guy on a messageboard that few of us have ever met personally, so we can't know for sure if he's honest). Until then there is no need to pick at his teacher, just because someone else hasn't been videoed to expose their potential trickery."

 

 

I didn't "pick at his teacher". I think this magic stuff is horseshit and has nothing to do with spiritual advancement even if it weren't. That someone promotes it to entice is highly suspect. I merely mentioned of my martial arts friends living in China might be keen on finding out for themselves.

[Buddy]

"I have read a little over at the empty flower. They live in a different world under a different belief system with different goals. Why go there and start a shit storm, what would be the point? Who cares?"

 

Well it's a convenient dodge, Sean. You seem like a sincere guy so you have naught to fear from lively debate. Although EF is a martial art forum there are folks on spiritual paths. I think you probably know that the heat in the kitchen would get too hot for you if you could not substantiate your claims.

[Neikung]

The guys name is not Richard, I heard the story from John Chang's close personal student.

Richard is his last name. You were apparently given the wrong info.

 

Well, I can tell you that David teaches a body of knowledge..It's like getting a PhD in Daoist theory.....This system belongs to the Zhu Ji stage, or foundation stage, and it is mostly used in the Jin Dan Dao (alchemical path) ..

What David offers in his teaching is what you would get if you were a closed door student of Sifu Wang Liping..

 

Very interesting and detailed description of what David teaches. It seems to me that these are all Daoist techniques. There is no methods taught by Shifu Zhai then (who supposedly teaches Shaolin Geng Men technique, which is Buddhist)?

 

For those who want to get the proof and have a scientist at hand who is truly interested in taking part in future studies, let me know and I will try to arrange contacts.

It seems to me that you don't really need scientists...all you need are a metal detector, an electrical measurement device (assuming that qi electricity will be very different from regular electricity generated by battery or Tesla coils) and an infra-red thermometer (or an infra-red video) to measure if an intense heat can come from Shifu Zhai's finger.

[DentyDao]

Richard is his last name. You were apparently given the wrong info.

Whatever you say. I spoke to guy personally and he is a member of our forum as well as a student of Mo Pai, at least he was before sifu retired. I don't know what you are talking about, but hundreds of people seek Pak John out every year, so your friend is probably someone else.

 

Bottom line, the story in the paper made John out to be a fake and he had no interest in correcting or challenging it and was happy to be left alone. Zhai, I'm sure is happy to do the same regarding the article posted on this thread.

 

Very interesting and detailed description of what David teaches. It seems to me that these are all Daoist techniques.

Yes, this is just one method David teaches. There are several, all Taoist.

 

There is no methods taught by Shifu Zhai then (who supposedly teaches Shaolin Geng Men technique, which is Buddhist)?

Zhai Sifu is Buddhist, nominally, but the methods he teaches are not Buddhist. The Chinese do not have any strict rule about using Taoist or Buddhist methods exclusively. Also, as far as I know, some practitioners in this pai are Shaolin, but Sifu is not and neither are his teachers. The old grand master practices Chan, but this is not the Chan that is written about; the only similarities would be at a very high level and of course philosophical principles and perhaps the way they sit and dress, at least the old grandmasters. The Shaolin were not the only ones who received teachings from Da Mo and they didn't get all his teachings either from what Sifu says if I recall correctly. There were some Shaolin at David's cerimony, Sifu said they have no real power or achievement. All that remains is a shell, they of course have Buddha Dharma which is a very high and effective teaching, no mistake about that. I would tend to agree with the masters on this point, but my only real point is that there are vast differences in what they do.

 

For clarity sake, I will elaborate. Zhai Sifu is a lineage holder of Da Mo Pai, the lineage that comes from Da Mo; a school that belongs to the line of the Dao called Lei Shan Dao. Despite what is written, it is unlikely that Da Mo himself was Buddhist. In any case, the lineage adopted the techniques used as well as Buddhist practices, so both are practiced.

 

What's more, Zhai sifu neither has Dan or Dan Tian, he has Xia Tian or lower field. Actually, what John Chang and Zhai sifu practice, at least at their current levels respectively, is qigong not neigong. We can say that they are both immortal and both very high, but not enlightened and no real neigong in the true sense of the words. David specializes in double cultivation of both Hou Tian and Xian Tian. So to cultivate Dan Tian, and do neigong is double cultivation.

 

The Dan Tian is the specialty of Wang Liping who often complains when so called masters come to talk about their Dan Tian and, in truth, don't even have Xia Tian, its lessor counterpart.

 

There is a lot more to it of course, but for now that is enough.

 

It seems to me that you don't really need scientists...all you need are a metal detector, an electrical measurement device (assuming that qi electricity will be very different from regular electricity generated by battery or Tesla coils) and an infra-red thermometer (or an infra-red video) to measure if an intense heat can come from Shifu Zhai's finger.

Well, we don't 'need' anything. The scientists have already agreed happily to run preliminary tests and it is they who are most interested in running the tests, from what I understand. It's not electricity and does not register on a voltmeter. It is qi and qi has nothing to do with electricity.

 

It is true that some masters train with high voltage electricity to create a yin field and speed up the training. The technology was developed by a friend of Sifu John Chang and is used in special opps training for the Chinese military. The application is mostly martial in nature and has nothing to do with real Tai Ji or Yin Yang Gong and is fairly low level. It's a tool used by some masters, but not all and a very effective although limited tool. From what I remember, some people use it to train level 2a.

Edited November 22, 2007 by seandenty

[Taoist81]

Let's see if this can be made to make sense without the proper quotes...

 

From the earlier post:

"Taoist81:"Buddy,

You cannot judge the validity of Sean's school based solely on a video posted on an online messageboard."

 

Buddy:"Moniker guy,

I can and do.""

 

And you are welcome to do so, but watching a video that looks like a magic trick hardly gives you enough information to judge the teachings of a particular school.

 

 

From the earlier post:

"Taoist81:"The people you speak of could just as easily be pulling the rug over peoples eyes as could Sean's teachers, or his teachers could be the real deal and your empty flower friends could be the fakes, or they could all be people who have acheived something that most only see in wuxia."

 

Buddy:"C'mon,

Martial artists regularly test each other. I've met up with a number of folks on EF and none were but they claimed to be.""

 

Sure, martial artists often compete, one on one, in person. Apparently there is a standing offer for interested parties to come and try it out for themselves. Until that is done, your analogy doesn't work.

 

From the earlier post:

"Taoist81:"Personally anyone who claims supernatural abilities is suspect simply because there are so many convincing frauds out there, convincing at least until you see an illusionist demonstrate how a particular trick was done. But, any logical skeptic has to point out that lack of evidence is not evidence of absence,"

 

Buddy:"Sorry, this is faulty logic. Everyone dies. Do we need to test everyone to believe this?""

 

 

Perhaps you should take a look at a basic level logic textbook. Do humans die? yes. Can we say that there is no such thing as an immortal because we cannot "test everyone"? No. If we made such a claim we would fall victim to the fallacy of negative proof and/or the fallacy of argument from ignorance. Is it likely that immortals exist (this is the part we will likely agree on)? No. Thus far there has been nothing put forward to suggest that anything is immortal. But you simply cannot prove that something does not exist anywhere. That is why we have the Flying Spaghetti Monster (all hail his noodley holiness).

 

 

Buddy: "I didn't "pick at his teacher". I think this magic stuff is horseshit and has nothing to do with spiritual advancement even if it weren't. That someone promotes it to entice is highly suspect. I merely mentioned of my martial arts friends living in China might be keen on finding out for themselves."

 

Now this (the possibility of horseshit) is where we really agree. Magick has its place in the world, and for all intents and purposes that place is right between the ears of every human being who wishes to experience it. Hence the reason James Randi was brought up earlier. Too often things get passed off as real just because people can't figure out how the trick is done.

 

Irregardless of how much bullshit may be thrown around, if one is using logic or skepticism, on should stick to the rules of logic. The rules of logic state that you cannot prove that something is not, just because there is no evidence that it is. This is the reason that science "does not comment on the supernatural". You can't prove or disprove something that is beyond or greater than the material basis tested in science. Thus "no comment".

[林愛偉]

 

 

For clarity sake, I will elaborate. Zhai Sifu is a lineage holder of Da Mo Pai, the lineage that comes from Da Mo; a school that belongs to the line of the Dao called Lei Shan Dao. Despite what is written, it is unlikely that Da Mo himself was Buddhist. In any case, the lineage adopted the techniques used as well as Buddhist practices, so both are practiced.

 

:-)

 

If you are talking about Bodhidharma, then he was Buddhist, and had techniques that are more than just cultivation for morality and virtue. If anyone reads the Shurangama Sutra, one may be able to find methods of cultivation that can be seen as Daoist alchemy, qigong, neigong. The reason is, cultivation is simply cultivation.

Buddhism isn't just what people see in the temples. That is only a very small percentage of Buddhism. On this planet, living beings can only handle a small percentage of Buddhist teachings. As the cultivator awakens more and more, drops dual mind, many more things ...reveal themselves.

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

[Adam West]

As I see it, if someone makes claims of an empirical nature, like the introduction of a new and as yet undiscovered element or the explicit negation of known physical constants or laws, like the mental affect of a mind-independent reality, then those claims invite testing and validation. Otherwise, those claims are as worthless as the fantasies of a child. Further, in a culture such as ours, one which implicitly assumes an empiricist epistemology, any said claims are more probabilistically false, than not, as previously stated by another poster, following Ockham's razor, given known physical constants.

 

In a room full of intelligent men and women, statements made will not go unnoticed or intellectually un-investigated. Certainly, unqualified claims such as X has already demonstrated F many times in front of X number of witness are entirely worthless without hearing directly from those witnesses themselves. For there is no personal testimony of eye witnesses; nor any physical proof or data drawn from appropriate test conditions. It amounts to disguised hearsay.

 

In kind regards,

 

Adam.

[DentyDao]

Hi Lin,

 

We believe that Buddhism adopted many high and effective methods from Taoists. Anyway, I would agree with most of what you wrote. David had some interesting things to say about Da Mo/Bodhi Dharma. You might find it interesting from a scholastic standpoint anyway.

 

Of course, many Buddhist in China are very high level and Buddhism produced and still does, I have no doubt, liberated and enlightened beings. Not the point of what I wrote at all.

[gendao]

IMO, the main difference between Buddhism and Taoism is that Buddhism believes that the mind is the only thing that really exists - and so they seek refuge in the mind.

 

Whereas Taoists believe that before the minds, there was emptiness...and so that is what truly exists eternally and what they take refuge in.

 

Personally, I believe that "first" there was emptiness, then maybe 3 "minds" arose...that then created our illusive universe. If that's the case, then both will take you out of the great dillusion and pretty far back...but Taoism just a little further.

[林愛偉]

IMO, the main difference between Buddhism and Taoism is that Buddhism believes that the mind is the only thing that really exists - and so they seek refuge in the mind.

 

Whereas Taoists believe that before the minds, there was emptiness...and so that is what truly exists eternally and what they take refuge in.

 

Personally, I believe that "first" there was emptiness, then maybe 3 "minds" arose...that then created our illusive universe. If that's the case, then both will take you out of the great dillusion and pretty far back...but Taoism just a little further.

 

 

Buddhism doesn't believe the mind exists. They don't take refuge in their mind. Daoism, if not cultivated properly, only takes you to states, not the original mind. Buddhism helps you understand the mind, the states that arise, and drop it to reveal the original nature, which is not mind.

 

 

The difference between Buddhism and Daoism is that along the lines people got attached to states and sensations, power and searched for that only, thinking it was the way to actual "oneness, Dao, Nirvana."

The name Buddhism was only given to let people know what the methods help you attain. Dao was a name given to let people realize the manner in which to cultivate in order to see the original nature of things.

 

To the relative mind, there is Dao, Buddha. To the completely enlightened mind, there is no separation.

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

[DentyDao]

 

Buddhism doesn't believe the mind exists. They don't take refuge in their mind. Daoism, if not cultivated properly, only takes you to states, not the original mind. Buddhism helps you understand the mind, the states that arise, and drop it to reveal the original nature, which is not mind.

The difference between Buddhism and Daoism is that along the lines people got attached to states and sensations, power and searched for that only, thinking it was the way to actual "oneness, Dao, Nirvana."

The name Buddhism was only given to let people know what the methods help you attain. Dao was a name given to let people realize the manner in which to cultivate in order to see the original nature of things.

 

To the relative mind, there is Dao, Buddha. To the completely enlightened mind, there is no separation.

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

Right on Lin. very nice

[林愛偉]

Hi Lin,

 

We believe that Buddhism adopted many high and effective methods from Taoists. Anyway, I would agree with most of what you wrote. David had some interesting things to say about Da Mo/Bodhi Dharma. You might find it interesting from a scholastic standpoint anyway.

 

Of course, many Buddhist in China are very high level and Buddhism produced and still does, I have no doubt, liberated and enlightened beings. Not the point of what I wrote at all.

 

 

I'm not claiming that Lei Shan Dao came from Buddhism.. haha so I hope you all don't worry about that.

 

WHat I am saying is there are loads of methods within Buddhism not readily seen by cultivators. These methods

only are revealed either by a master who has cultivated them, or knows them well and has attained high level then teaches them, OR through one's diligent cultivation, with a foundation of virtue, and moral.

 

I will not lay claims of what any master has done, or can do now. What I will say is that it is a shame that the more in depth methods of Buddhism cannot be available to living beings until they are well cultivated to accept them. It is a pity that Buddhism and Daoism cannot shine in its completeness on this planet. Yet at the same time it is best certain things stay within the hands of well cultivated and responsible beings. If power methods get to irresponsible people, many will get hurt, and many have.

Buddhism was in China before Bodhidharma came. Many Buddhist masters were arguing with each other as many do today about whose teaching representation is best, who is enlightened, more detached, etc. And we have it amongst lay people too! He set things straight with the Mind to Mind Seal of Chan cultivation. Then, "Left". Not to say everyone who cultivates Buddhism will become enligthened in one lifetime, all depends on their conditions. Same thing with Daoist cultivation. A state experienced is only passing, and power attainment doesn't come from one lifetime of cultivation. There may be some significant abilities attained, but not 100% of the ability.

 

Also, not all Daoist cultivators, lay and left home, are the honest of people. Where my Shifu lives, in Taian, at her temple, the head of the temple takes the bulk of the money offered to the temple for herself, all the healthy and good food for herself, and leaves everyone with less than 100yuan a month and some rice, noodles and preserved salted vegetables. There is rivalry in all factions of cultivation amongst egotistic beings despite what they cultivate.

 

I always say that as long as the system cultivated is founded on wholesome values, and tuaght with the foundations of virtue and a moral mind, then it is safe and wouldn't purposely lead to one becoming evilly influenced.

 

Peace and Blessings Brother,

Lin

[DentyDao]

 

I'm not claiming that Lei Shan Dao came from Buddhism.. haha so I hope you all don't worry about that.

 

WHat I am saying is there are loads of methods within Buddhism not readily seen by cultivators. These methods only are revealed either by a master who has cultivated them, or knows them well and has attained high level then teaches them, OR through one's diligent cultivation, with a foundation of virtue, and moral.

 

 

Not at all, I would agree with everything you said. I would say both Daoism in Buddhism are two peas in the same pod. Of course both are good and have their strengths and weaknesses.

[Uncle Fester]

.

Edited September 19, 2021 by darebak

[Ian]

 

Advice from a poor wretch who has found some blessed peace in his approach to this path: Find something that speaks to you, forget what you think you know, forget who you think you are, and apply your will and sincerity to the practice you have chosen. If you haven't found it yet then keep searching. Don't stop to pick apart what doesn't resonate with you. Find your path. I believe this is is the one kind of striving that actually contains a seed of reality within. Don't ever give up. If all else fails then at least you will find peace in sincerity before you die. Will you find sincerity in poo pooing what you know nothing of on a message board?

 

Best Wishes,

D

 

Second that.

[林愛偉]

Not at all, I would agree with everything you said. I would say both Daoism in Buddhism are two peas in the same pod. Of course both are good and have their strengths and weaknesses.

 

 

 

They do, I agree..yet those weaknesses are all only according to the cultivator

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

[sheng zhen]

 

I think that any attempts to analyze the motivations, works or paradigms of a Master from within "the world of dust" is accomplishing nothing but stirring up more dust.

 

 

Yeah! Right on! But will it stop the discussion or stirring of dust? Not at all... This is a level of understanding that only those at that level understand.

[Gerard]

IMO, the main difference between Buddhism and Taoism is that Buddhism believes that the mind is the only thing that really exists - and so they seek refuge in the mind.

 

Whereas Taoists believe that before the minds, there was emptiness...and so that is what truly exists eternally and what they take refuge in.

 

Personally, I believe that "first" there was emptiness, then maybe 3 "minds" arose...that then created our illusive universe. If that's the case, then both will take you out of the great dillusion and pretty far back...but Taoism just a little further.

 

No, Buddhists believe that every time the spirit is reborn body and mind is formed and within the mind there are four subgroups: thoughts or mental formation (sankhara), perception (sanna), sensation (vedana) and consciousness (vinnana).

 

Now if you are trying to identify yourself (ego) with that mind, you'll find it nowhere as it is purely a product of karma. It's not you.

 

However, Taoism does not contemplate the concept of karma -but I found this term being mentioned throughout this and other threads of this forum- and they just view the concept of reincarnation in terms of the soul migrating to another life, whereas Buddhists like myself understand that during the rebirth process a new conscious state is born carrying the seeds of good and evil deeds during its karmic evolution.

[forestofsouls]

I find it odd that the very people who come and evangelize a particular system suddenly wither when they are questioned, or when opposing evidence is presented to a "follow your bliss" sort of paradigm*. Especially when these same people come and say or imply their way is the best way/only way/superior way/original way and everyone else are "chimpanzees" babbling about the news.

 

If LSD is a true way, then the way it has been presented publicly is in shockingly poor form and shows a fundamental ignorance of how human beings operate on an individual mental level and on a group level. A tree in some way is known by its fruits. If it is a false way, it should be questioned and exposed. Either way, if LSD cannot handle public questioning, then they should never have come to the public, not only on this forum but many others as well.

[sunshine]

If LSD is a true way, then the way it has been presented publicly is in shockingly poor form and shows a fundamental ignorance of how human beings operate on an individual mental level and on a group level. A tree in some way is known by its fruits. If it is a false way, it should be questioned and exposed. Either way, if LSD cannot handle public questioning, then they should never have come to the public, not only on this forum but many others as well.

 

 

I find the: you can judge EVERY parent by their child mentality a little problematic, and it is a little reductionistic to reduce the tree to a fruit you might not like...

 

whatever. Public questioning was handled by each student their own way.

 

 

Harry

[joeblast]

I find it odd that the very people who come and evangelize a particular system suddenly wither when they are questioned, or when opposing evidence is presented to a "follow your bliss" sort of paradigm*. Especially when these same people come and say or imply their way is the best way/only way/superior way/original way and everyone else are "chimpanzees" babbling about the news.

 

If LSD is a true way, then the way it has been presented publicly is in shockingly poor form and shows a fundamental ignorance of how human beings operate on an individual mental level and on a group level. A tree in some way is known by its fruits. If it is a false way, it should be questioned and exposed. Either way, if LSD cannot handle public questioning, then they should never have come to the public, not only on this forum but many others as well.

other than a few crumbs, nothing has been presented publicly.

[gendao]

Hmm, I think I got the wrong impression from a recent Buddhist lecture then - which seemed to stress that mind was the only thing that exists. Or there may even simply be some slight conflicts within Buddhism about this.

Although the texts of Mahayana Buddhism claim to be a recollection of early speeches of the Buddha, they contradict some conservative doctrines of the Theravada school. It is said that the Mahayana sutras were revealed many years after the master's death, because at that time the world was not yet able to understand them. According to their teaching, Ultimate Reality is also an ultimate truth, called the truth of emptiness. Emptiness is a quality attached to any physical, mental or doctrinal concept. It is the basis of our world, not as a substance, but as a truth. The doctrine of emptiness denies any kind of substantial ultimate reality and affirms that the world is to be seen as a web of interdependent and baseless phenomena.

 

The presence of many Buddhas in Mahayana Buddhism inaugurated a strong devotional trend that had to be reconciled with this doctrine of emptiness. The result was the doctrine of the three bodies of the Buddha (Trikaya), developed by the Yogachara school in the fifth century AD. It says that Ultimate Reality, called Buddhahood, is expressed at three levels of understanding. The first is Dharmakaya, the essential body of the Buddha, representing emptiness itself. It is the ultimate truth that governs the world. The other two bodies are the embodiment of compassion for beings ensnared by illusion. It is only because ignorance blinds conditioned beings, that the Dharmakaya is manifested as the other two, so that the conditioned beings can grow in wisdom and eventually attain enlightenment.

 

The second body is the Samboghakaya, the body of enjoyment. It is the body of the Buddhas in their Pure Lands, where they preach the Mahayana doctrine to those reborn here. The Buddhas in this form are the objects of Mahayana devotion, the source of grace for the devotees of popular Buddhism.

 

What was known as the physical body of Siddhartha Gautama is the third body of the Buddha, the Nirmanakaya. It is a mere image manifested in our world for the benefit of the lowliest of beings, the most ignorant and weak, unable to attain a Pure Land.

So, it sounds like there's some awareness of both an interconnected "godly" unity and a "nihilistic" emptiness in Buddhism...but perhaps some confusion or debate as to how to reconcile the 2. Edited November 22, 2007 by vortex

[林愛偉]

Hmm, I think I got the wrong impression from a recent Buddhist lecture then - which seemed to stress that mind was the only thing that exists. Or there may even simply be some slight conflicts within Buddhism about this.So, it sounds like there's some awareness of both an interconnected "godly" unity and a "nihilistic" emptiness in Buddhism...but perhaps some confusion or debate as to how to reconcile the 2.

 

Interesting

 

That piece is talking about the mind of living beings being capable of understanding different teachings.

Some have the capacity to cultivate certain teachings which results in a more "faster" enlightening of the mind, and others cannot, which results in a more "gradual".

The manner of "godly" and "nihilistic" is actually their teachings of non-duality and the utilizing of conditions to drop views. This is probably where the "mind is all that exists" idea came from. Because all things arise in the mind, and unenlightened beings are usually prone to attaching to what they experience, thus causing more confusion to themselves.

I see what you mean when it comes to the many Buddhas existing, and then there is talk of emptiness. They mean really that all Buddhas are of the nature, but only utilize different characteristics to those living beings who resonate with them (certain characteristics) most.

Its not hard to explain. It just depends on where the mind is when understanding it all.

 

So, emptiness and the manner of many Buddhas actually reflect the functions of the mind; There is no-mind, but the simple movement of thoughts, arising of thought and or attachment to thought makes there become a separation, thus the mannerisms of mind. All things arise in mind, mind is arises in all things. Both are interchangeable, and when one is dropped the other is soon to follow.

The Buddhas arise in the mind's of living beings. No minds of living beings, no Buddhas.

 

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

[Wayfarer64]

It is not so hard to hear truth spoken/written, there is a "ring" to it that is real- yes there is the ring of truth in words or there is not. Most words are dull and have no resonance to assertain. When we hear truth or read it ...it becomes something more real than just the words uttered/shared... it may even become a real part of our own lives.

 

We each have chosen paths that enclude seeking higher wisdom than is "typical" in modern cultures for the most part. I have expressed my very serious doubts as to the path offered by Sean Denty- it does not ring true for me.

 

That this thread has become something more than the plateform to shill one method of search is a true blessing for us all, we continue our searching with open minds and hearts-

May this day of thanks resonate for you all- seeking answers to the deepest of questions...