What is potential in terms of Taoist practices?

[dawei]

 

Well, I only hold to the standard practice of the QuanZhen Tao but not other Taoist beliefs. It is more than just associated with internal alchemy traditions. Perhaps read this, with your own discretion, and see does it alter your thinking in anyway.

DCXM

 

of course this is utter BS...

 

You already admitted that you had no clue about Xing and Ming prior to the translation and exclaimed no such knowledge of it... and then during translating it was evident and afterwards you now claim you hold to the standard practice of Quanzhen Tao???

[ChiDragon]

Dawei....
I have been holding my cool on you and some of the TTB members for all this time. Don't you think that was part of the cultivation of Xing Kung on my part? It is part of the Quanzhen cannon that I am holding myself to.

FYI The four cardinal vices (酒色財氣). 氣(temperament) is an advice for one not to be 生氣(angry) under adversity. Anymore questions?


PS......
Even through I have no idea about Xing at the beginning, but it was not to late to get myself educated which was suggested by the 全真道. My practice was not too far off. Was it?

Edited January 3, 2014 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32406-building-the-foundation-and-inner-alchemy/?p=495304

 

Xing Ming(性命) means life. I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF XING GONG(性功) OR MING GONG(命功) in any Chinese Classics

 

 

You go from challenging the very idea of Ming Gong and Xing Gong, like hundreds of other issues you have no knowledge of... to then translating a chinese encyclopedia entry on Quanzhen... to now being an expert on it?

 

And we're supposed to simply believe you know WTF your talking about?

 

We are not that gullible.

 

It seems every time you learn a new concept here, the next day you proclaim to have mastered it and start preaching to others how to do it and why they are wrong.

 

You haven't fathomed Xing Gong as evidenced by such games you play here.

[Urpflanze]

When one gathers potential, what is one gathering exactly?

Where is it kept?

What is done with it?

etc...

 

etc??? You mean you have more questions but prefer posters to fill them and answer anyway? Really, is this how you go about learning - by uttering "etc"?

[joeblast]

depth of understanding akin to the thickness of the page of the book being attempted to translate

[Jetsun]

I am not concerned at all with temporal or temporary gains for myself, although i would certainly like to leave good things behind my inevitable transition into the great mystery of 'death'

 

I am looking at my current corporeal existence as a chance to make an investment into future existences, whatever they may be.

 

I admit that I am still very confused/ignorant of what I should be 'doing'

 

'recondite' is a perfect word for this subject

 

I am trying to look/see each moment and find that which is of value beyond mere entertainment..trying to find that special magical extra something of worth..

 

while I know that techniques, etc. are conceptual and limited, does anyone have any literal explanations of what I should do?

 

Trying to hit it from all angles - from conventional to transcendent..

 

as always, thank you Deci Belle for these explanations which give me the opportunity to expand my 'self' or that, gain wisdom or open new doors.

 

and thanks to all posters for your time/energy...every little bit helps

 

It sounds like you have a strong intuition that you should do something, instead of looking outward at what you should do instead turn around and see where that call of intuition is coming from. That yearning is coming from somewhere, instead of following it outwards looking to fulfil its call instead track it back to its source.

[Songtsan]

To those whom may concern....

I am sorry that I got involved with this thread. Due to the lack of the desirable knowledge, in your opinion, I will no longer be involved with those who do not wish to listen to this dumb China man, yours truly.

 

You have made statements that I have found useful in the past....knowledge is transitory - do not be attached to being right or wrong, as everything can be right and wrong all the time.

[Songtsan]

NotVoid,

Thanks for the kind words. I am practicing the DCXM which require me to follow the principles of the Quanzhen Tao. One of the requirement is to isolate the facts from the fallacies and opinions. What I am putting out here are not my personal opinions but from the high standards of the Quanzhen Tao. Some of the people were against me was because they only thought it was some translation from some fancy Chinese words without basis. I saw those who had accused me of putting lots of craps which only their personal opinions. Thus I haven't seen any merits in their presentations which are so convincing in any way. Most of time, I only see statements to say what is not rather than what it is. However, due to my present practice in DCXM, I have great tolerance for this kind of activities.

 

 

PS.....

There is really noting serious about what was going on in the forum, it is only a matter how one handles the adverse situations with calmness.

 

There is a place for 'scientific skepticism' even in the face of supposed 'masters' - Buddha himself stated this. Having read of old school Taoists efforts to obtain immortality through imbibing things such as lead, mercury, cinnabar, etc. it is plain to see that blindly following others opinions because they state that 'they know' can be counterproductive. In the end we must all be our own science labs and 'find by doing' for something which can only be experienced and not conceptually imitated in the minds virtual reality space.

[ChiDragon]

There is a place for 'scientific skepticism' even in the face of supposed 'masters' - Buddha himself stated this. Having read of old school Taoists efforts to obtain immortality through imbibing things such as lead, mercury, cinnabar, etc. it is plain to see that blindly following others opinions because they state that 'they know' can be counterproductive. In the end we must all be our own science labs and 'find by doing' for something which can only be experienced and not conceptually imitated in the minds virtual reality space.

They did not have any scientific knowledge then, so, do we have to follow their footsteps in modern time and space age....???

[ChiDragon]

You have made statements that I have found useful in the past....knowledge is transitory - do not be attached to being right or wrong, as everything can be right and wrong all the time.

Thank you for your kind words. That was only aiming at the unreasonable ones. Please ignore my ignorance.

[Songtsan]

Chi says:

Its kinda like jazz~ if you have to say what kind of jazz it is— IT'S NOT JAZZ.

 

unless it's Acid Jazz! The best kind of jazz...

 

There have always been those who were born knowing complete reality. Aliens are not responsible. It is mind itself. There is nothing inside or outside mind. Mind is unattributable, inconceivable. Not knowing potential is not knowing yourself.

 

Is this the same as the 'all is mind' school in Buddhism? I agree with all is mind school...and I also believe that all is perception - that perception is exactly that. Nothing stands alone or is separate - everything in linked, unoriginated cause/effect chains from endless/beginningless suchness . All awareness perception is 100% a part of these uncreate patterns, endlessly shifting, and in its absolute reality having no demarcations of conceptual nature.

 

How can we ever know anything outside of perception? Whatever we think about those things which we cannot perceive, it is only supposition and approximation. Can our will operate outside the realms of the perceivable in a way which is useful? Isn't mind exactly all that we perceive - and by mind in this case I mean the highest kind...

 

Songstan, why do you deliberately separate yourself from this important thing, the matter of life and death, by saving it for a future lifetime? That you may or may not realize complete reality in this lifetime is immaterial and a given. Making a needless pact with yourself over this is relegating the fact that your self-importance matters to reality. It does not matter to reality. But what you should realize is that seeing potential is a matter of not employing the thinking mind in coming into contact with ordinary circumstances. Why saver that for later, hmmmmm?

 

I have studied about 50x as much Buddhist material as I have Taoist material - a situation I aim to remedy. What I was doing was aping the belief that worldly pursuits as opposed to pursuits for virtue and eventual enlightenment of the fullest sort, which the Buddha was assuming was out of range for most people in this lifetime, were not worth my time. I fully intend to savor that which I perceive naturally as part of my path, I simply don't intend to be attached to things which waste my time. I definitely am pretty much in agreement with you as far as my own self importance not mattering. I am well addicted to the enlightening path and happy about it. I think I understand 'not employing thinking mind' well enough for now - as I can get to such a level that, for example, I can listen to people speak English, and not understand a word of what they say, but instead hear it in such a manner that it seems a new, mysterious and intoxicating 'sound' (without any mental label of being sound or language). No labels, no relative comparisons, no memory of past, no thoughts of future, no idea of a self seeing, etc...just purely absorbed into perception...probably just a few subconscious mutterings going on that I am a 'me' having a perceptive experience.....aiming for no dualistic thinking.

 

 

I will repeat: Seeing potential is a matter of not employing the thinking mind in coming into contact with ordinary circumstances.

 

I think what is going on here with me is like that story of the monk telling his abbot that watching the breath is boring. I am just not there yet. I am thinking that there must be something more - so therefore I haven't succeeded well enough with my quest, regardless of how well I have in theory. Any perception of a thinking me, who is not enjoying, or succeeding is the 'self' just not 'there' yet...

 

I think half the effort of learning is coming to understand the definitions used for words given to the listener. I imagine my own definitions for many key words such as mind, Taomind, create/uncreate, etc. are not in line with those individuals whose explanations I am given.

 

I will respond more later when the time is right.

Edited January 4, 2014 by Songtsan

[Songtsan]

They did not have any scientific knowledge then, so, do we have to follow their footsteps in modern time and space age....???

 

Just because they didn't employ the official scientific method per se does not mean that science wasn't happening. The whole history of mankind is one of conjecture, hypothesis, theory, etc. being updated constantly...they once thought that the world was flat, then they thought it was a sphere, now they know it as an oblong spheroid...Often-times, the science was going on in the laboratory of the human body - people experimenting with poisons, ways to heal over millenia - how do you think that the South American Indians knew to mix the vine of the souls with the various DMT containing plants available to them? Experimenting - experimenting is science, in whatever form.

[Songtsan]

This whole thinking mind is like a virtual reality version of the 'true' reality that is incoming every second, full of labels, categorizations, etc. Even though we are also perceiving internal mind, AKA thinking mind, at the same time that we are perceiving external reality, can these be separated for conversations sake into 'real' and 'not real' on a temporary basis?

 

Would complete reality knowledge also include the perceptions of this internal mind, or would this true knowing through 'seeing' as you describe entail the complete non-perception and essential extinction of this internal mind? Or, can one see the internal, judgmental mind without being attached or seeing through its filters, so that it to becomes part of true, complete seeing with extcinction of self? If so, would this then be considered seeing from a different stance? Some stance outside of time and dualisms?

 

Is labeled mind considered 'create' and the 'uncreate' all that is directly percieved but unborn? I am confused about 'phenomena' being considered created..I thought they were just part of endless causal chains?

Edited January 4, 2014 by Songtsan

[joeblast]

turn the light around + watch the breath = not boring in the least

[Walker]

http://thetaobums.com/topic/32406-building-the-foundation-and-inner-alchemy/?p=495304

 

 

 

You go from challenging the very idea of Ming Gong and Xing Gong, like hundreds of other issues you have no knowledge of... to then translating a chinese encyclopedia entry on Quanzhen... to now being an expert on it?

 

And we're supposed to simply believe you know WTF your talking about?

 

We are not that gullible.

 

It seems every time you learn a new concept here, the next day you proclaim to have mastered it and start preaching to others how to do it and why they are wrong.

 

You haven't fathomed Xing Gong as evidenced by such games you play here.

Excellent. I am glad you found this.

 

Two notes:

 

1. The capital letters are ChiDragon's own

 

2. This post is about two months old--now he is "teaching" on the topic.

 

Finally, no, not all opinions are valid. "In my opinion putting ice cream in your gas tank will yield better mileage." Hyperbole? No more than thinking ChiDragon can become versed in Quanzhen teachings via copy and paste in two months is hyperbole. Aspirants standing at the starts of their paths do well to be wary of this deeply deluded fellow.

 

Desperation for attention and willingness to pretend is one of the deadly combinations responsible for the fact that, as one of my close teachers has said, "the spiritual path is littered on both sides with lost souls."

 

慎.

[ChiDragon]

I like your scramble logic without following the sequence of events. I do update my knowledge daily, don't you? There is something that I don't know today but I will find out tomorrow. Likewise, I do make correction for my mistake from the new thing that I learned. There may be something I have been practicing without knowing at times. Fortunately, I have become enlightened by finding the answer instead of grabbing pieces from here and there. Unfortunately, there are some people, here, are 唯恐天下不亂, by picking random notes with a purpose to belittle someone without merits.

Please enjoy your day and happy for being a plodder.


PS....
Keep coming, it is good for my Xing Kung practice and please don't forget to pay some attention to my new signature.

Edited January 5, 2014 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

Fortunately, I have become enlightened

 

I think TTB needs to have a moment of sublime acknowledgement...

 

[ChiDragon]

Please don't forget the most important part is to take a deep breath.

Edited January 6, 2014 by ChiDragon

[dawei]

not if in the Embryonic State of meditation... one is beyond merely breathing...

[deci belle]

Chi D completely missed the boat in post #2 in his response to the OP.

The highest potential is to be a better person mentally and physically. Period.

 

Now if mr Chi had had the slightest spec of insight into potential, he could have had himself a heyday.

 

Just this much is hopefully a HUGE window into mr Chi's practice in general and his literalist take on the venerable tradition of Complete Reality tradition (his supposed new religion).

 

Why didn't you just say potential in terms of taoist practice is the essence of reality?

 

In terms of essence, THERE IS NO PERSON.

 

In terms of potential, THERE IS NO CHANGE.

 

Why has mr Chi never once come up with cogent responses pertaining to these basic tenets of taoist practice in over five years of my letters on just this one subject? These aren't even practical applications of taoist practice, but still— in terms of energy work, inner alchemy and disciplines of contemplation~ "the highest potential is to be a better person mentally and physically. Period." Goddamnit, man— ya left out the spiritual part. WTF?

 

Why? Because mr Chi could never give it a name (he still can't) …but now that he has his new religion to believe in and apply himself in terms of the letter in a whole new vista of real meaning (no doubt from Chinese texts), he has a new emperor's wardrobe to admire himself in.

 

For crying out loud, Chi, why does it always have to be about you and your intellectual identity trying out new meanings to believe in?

 

It doesn't matter if you can translate Martian Telepathy— if in spite of all the sincerity in the universe, (which Chi has, by the way) if one has no knowledge of the basis or have an inherent affinity with the organic process involved, hell, even if I put you in one of my corsets and garters et al, and fluff you up like a freshly-washed choir-boy until you sing "hosanna in the highest", it still won't work in this lifetime.

 

"Even if you steam sand for beginningless kalpas, you'll never get rice."

 

To quote a Japanese rock-climber from a past lifetime… "Get down from there!! You look ugly!!"

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: add a "y" in paragraph 6, "hosanna in the highest" in the 9th

Edited January 11, 2014 by deci belle

[Brian]

See also: Nungali's suppressed chuckle from that other thread...

[Stosh]

...so yeah, I was looking at this pile of dirty laundry and said to myself, Self , how did all these panties get in such a wad? like wouldnt somebody be all uncomfortable and embarrassed about it? You know, Like alll that being stuff an adult should have grown out of? like when kids say, " sticks and stones may break my bones, but yall can go pound salt. Id toss it all in a pit to be left behind indefinately because I cant see it ever coming clean.

[ChiDragon]

Just because they didn't employ the official scientific method per se does not mean that science wasn't happening.

 

That is true but that is not what I am against. The thing that was it is "then" and "now". Since we understand what is "now" which supersedes the "then", then, why are we still using the "then" old concept. Why not use the "now" concept to make the "then" less skeptical.

Edited January 11, 2014 by ChiDragon

[joeblast]

*tosses CD a shovel*

[Songtsan]

That is true but that is not what I am against. The thing that was it is "then" and "now". Since we understand what is "now" which supersedes the "then", then, why are we still using the "then" old concept. Why not use the "now" concept to make the "then" less skeptical.

 

I am wid ya!