Wang Liping Low Level?

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[Brian]

Fairly obvious? Should I do a Tarot reading to divine the hidden meaning in your statement which would lead me to the obvious?

No, I'll spell it out for you!

 

The biggest problem with this thread is that there is an element within the Bums community which continually labels systems and teachers (other than the specific ones they have personally chosen to believe in) as fraudulent and they claim to have irrefutable evidence that their chosen master/system is unquestionably legitimate, and that lacking identical "irrefutable evidence" they are therefore undeniably correct in their assessments.

 

Others attempt to point out that the evidence is not so irrefutable as they seem to believe or that that the logic underlying their positions is not built upon the bedrock they seem to believe it to be. Those "others" generally are very explicit im pointing out that they are not claiming the so-called "irrefutable evidence" is anything other than what it is presented to be and that they are not casting aspersions upon either the system or teacher but merely pointing out that attempting to leverage that evidence/system/teacher to discredit another system or teacher is unwarranted. In response, rather than acknowledge that perhaps they have taken it a step too far, the aforementioned element invariably turns ugly, as has been the case in this thread.

[Brian]

In other words: You were unable to understand that my argument in question (post #146) was pointed at you

although in the same post I quoted you beforehand?

Or more likely you do you keep up your diversion although claiming to do otherwise (which I would interpret as agreement with my hypothesis).

 

 

Seems to be a comparison that does not fit.

So why not stick with the question:

 

How do you prove advanced spiritual development (or even spiritual mastery):

1) with advanced ethics

2) with advanced ability to manipulate and influence spirit

3) ...

Actually, I was suggesting you should look in the mirror, ZOOM.

 

The bicycle analogy fits precisely but you find it inconvenient.

 

I thought your point was that you prove advanced spiritual development by performing parlor tricks with LEDs and chopsticks, and that anyone not presenting this evidence is clearly a fraud and a charlatan?

[Brian]

In other words: You were unable to understand that my argument in question (post #146) was pointed at you

although in the same post I quoted you beforehand?

Or more likely you do you keep up your diversion although claiming to do otherwise (which I would interpret as agreement with my hypothesis).

 

 

Seems to be a comparison that does not fit.

So why not stick with the question:

 

How do you prove advanced spiritual development (or even spiritual mastery):

1) with advanced ethics

2) with advanced ability to manipulate and influence spirit

3) ...

Perhaps you know how to ride a bicycle but don't understand riding a bicycle? This is generally the case, I have found. Most people have no clue of the interplay involved -- and have no need to! In fact, engaging the mind to try to "understand" how to ride a bicycle is one of the quickest ways to find yourself on the ground with a skinned knee and a broken bicycle.

 

[ralis]

No, I'll spell it out for you!

 

The biggest problem with this thread is that there is an element within the Bums community which continually labels systems and teachers (other than the specific ones they have personally chosen to believe in) as fraudulent and they claim to have irrefutable evidence that their chosen master/system is unquestionably legitimate, and that lacking identical "irrefutable evidence" they are therefore undeniably correct in their assessments.

 

Others attempt to point out that the evidence is not so irrefutable as they seem to believe or that that the logic underlying their positions is not built upon the bedrock they seem to believe it to be. Those "others" generally are very explicit im pointing out that they are not claiming the so-called "irrefutable evidence" is anything other than what it is presented to be and that they are not casting aspersions upon either the system or teacher but merely pointing out that attempting to leverage that evidence/system/teacher to discredit another system or teacher is unwarranted. In response, rather than acknowledge that perhaps they have taken it a step too far, the aforementioned element invariably turns ugly, as has been the case in this thread.

 

I comprehend completely what is being discussed here. However, your narrative in general, can be middle of the road/riding the fence. Furthermore, you can state your position without the need with the opening condescending/exclamatory remark. "No, I'll spell it out for you!"

[Brian]

I comprehend completely what is being discussed here. However, your narrative in general, can be middle of the road/riding the fence. Furthermore, you can state your position without the need with the opening condescending/exclamatory remark. "No, I'll spell it out for you!"

If you comprehended completely, ralis, why did you need to ask whether a Tarot reading was necessary to divine the hidden meaning in my statement?

 

No need to answer, actually -- that's just a rhetorical question.

[ralis]

Many of the so called masters whether contemporary or ancient have disapproved of powers as being a distraction. Why? Fear perhaps? The so called warnings are; Buddhist hell realms, Christian hell or some type of damnation of sorts. Basically, one won't be allowed in heaven if powers are displayed which is nothing more than a struggle for power and authoritarian manipulation. In the conservative minds of these so called masters, power is never shared. Followers of authoritarian masters will naturally parrot whatever ideology is planted in their non critical minds. 

[Brian]

If I recall correctly, the reason John Chang didn't continue the following day to go to the nearby university for clinical analysis was because he said the ancestral spirits of his lineage disapproved of his unnecessary displays. In fact, my recollection is that he said he was actually punished for doing so. The problem not being using his abilities but misusing them -- hence my use of the phrase "parlor tricks." That was not intended to discount or question the legitimacy of the displays but to call attention to the pointlessness of them.

[Brian]

In truth, I am not for or against whatever you or ZOOM or KenBrace choose to believe or not believe. I am largely (and increasingly) indifferent to it, actually. Not just the three of you but the whole concept of attachment to ideas. The "rational mind" side of me still wants to engage in such things and point out fallacious thinking but the source calls me to let such things go.

 

In fact, I was reminded today on another forum of Sima's words:

"To seek Mind with the discriminating mind is the greatest of all mistakes"

 

and with that verse resonating through me, I will bow out of this thread.

 

_/\_

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[lifeforce]

Many of the so called masters whether contemporary or ancient have disapproved of powers as being a distraction. Why? Fear perhaps? The so called warnings are; Buddhist hell realms, Christian hell or some type of damnation of sorts. Basically, one won't be allowed in heaven if powers are displayed which is nothing more than a struggle for power and authoritarian manipulation. In the conservative minds of these so called masters, power is never shared. Followers of authoritarian masters will naturally parrot whatever ideology is planted in their non critical minds.

Brilliantly put !

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[thelerner]

Being spiritually advanced has nothing at all to do with personal ethics.

Being spiritually advanced means to have an advanced development of spirit.

Being a spiritual master means to have a spirit so developed that your personality and consciousness will be able to survive in it after physical death.

I find that sad.  If you have something precious and dangerous, why wouldn't you demand the receiver be of the highest personal ethics?  Build it into the teachings so that when inevitably tempted, students on the path don't go astray?  

 

  Otherwise you'd get crap like two advanced level guys fighting each other to the death on the high end and endless petty bickering on the low.  Without ethics, power becomes self indulgent and self destructive. 

Edited June 4, 2015 by thelerner

[Wells]

.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Wells

[ralis]

Artificial "ethics" won't change that...

 

Agreed!

 

Authoritarian religious systems have been imposing crowd control via the so called higher cause of morals and ethics for several thousand years. To what end?

[Ish]

-

Edited April 4, 2018 by Ish

[ralis]

When one develops there is a natural inner virtue - doing the "ethical" things externally is much more natural, and just means listening to the energy.

 

However not everyone is capable or developed enough to follow their own inner virtue...

 

So the reason for teaching ethics is to give these people a guidance and good principle to follow their life by.

 

 

Of course there may be many rules and dogma in religion where the point is to control people - but truthful ethics can still be helpful.

 

You are implying that the universe dictates ethics and morality. That has been discussed ad infinitum by philosophers with no reasonable conclusion. I see no evidence that the universe is moral or not moral.

[Ish]

-

Edited July 26, 2016 by Ish

[thelerner]

You misunderstood.

My hypothesis was:

Spiritual level and potential for spiritual development have nothing to do with ethics level.

 

A master can certainly ask from his students to have "highest personal ethics" if he wants to.

 

 

Great idea! Mix lies into the honest instructions to manipulate your students and to mind-control them! Awesome!

I understood your hypothesis, I'm just at the opposite spectrum if you think ethics are mind-control and lies. 

 

The master disciple relation should be very close and go beyond simple 'asking' and into deep knowing.   The master should know his close students.

 

 

addon> or maybe I'm wrong.  For those people who've studied under higher level systems under guidance of a master level teacher did ethics enter into the teaching?  Was there in any way a litmus test for continued study?

 

In two arts I've been exposed to, Aikido and yoga, ethics were very important.  You showed low character you'd be tossed out because of it.  Some made it through, but the system working properly weeded them out. 

 

Heck even in Mo Pai, John Chang crossed an ethical line and paid for it.  Spiritual development and ethics are not as separate as you might assume. They're connected because schools can't afford to teach and create powerful assholes.   Not understanding the connection may be part of the reason Mo Pai is no longer taught in the West.    

Edited June 4, 2015 by thelerner

[healingtouch]

From my experience, and from others accounts that I have read of or heard of as well, the ethics that we display is a major factor in what kind of teachers, and I'm talking about spiritual form teachers, aka immortals, we attract around us ...

 

So now, if one has no regard for ethics and being of service to others, and is only driven by a desire for more power, for more status, for more abilities, to be #1 at any cost, for no reason other than ego gratification, what kind of teacher will this person attract? Will it be one that's willing to share the deepest secrets and training methods, with no pretense and illusion added on top, a kind one, an understanding one, that will take you to freedom and enlightenment or will it be one that has no regard for ethics either, that's alike, that is going to use this person for its own selfish motives, that will share only the minimum knowledge that's necessary for it to achieve what it wants out of the person its training and for whom only results, status and power matter at any cost?

 

So now you tell me, where's the logic in preaching that ethics don't and shouldn't matter? I mean, yes, sure, if you want to be a pawn used by your "teachers"  and "superiors" in whatever "divine" plan they have concocted, then I can completely understand why one would support the position that ethics are irrelevant to one's spiritual level

 

On the same note, I think everyone here would enjoy watching Legend of the Condor Heroes for an excellent portrayal of the different kind of teachers one could encounter ...

 

[doc benway]

If one gets a direct taste of our true nature, there is such a profound sense of connection that there is no possibility of unethical or immoral behavior. It has nothing to do with social or cultural morals and ethics. It is the spontaneous manifestation of the awakened heart/mind. Logic and rational thought are superfluous here, as are rules, standards, and philosophy. Ethics and morals are relative human concepts that vary dramatically among cultures, eras, and individuals. Awakening of the heart/mind, on the other hand, is absolute and when it is present, there can be no unethical or immoral behavior. 

 

Just my $.02

[Brian]

 

You are implying that the universe dictates ethics and morality. That has been discussed ad infinitum by philosophers with no reasonable conclusion. I see no evidence that the universe is moral or not moral.

I am curious (and this is not particularly directed towards you, ralis) -- if philosophers mutually agreed to a "reasonable conclusion," would the universe acknowledge their authority?

[KenBrace]

You are implying that the universe dictates ethics and morality. That has been discussed ad infinitum by philosophers with no reasonable conclusion. I see no evidence that the universe is moral or not moral.

 

In comparison to our man-made ethics I'd say the "universe" is quite immoral. In nature, everything eats everything else to survive. The male body is a regular killing machine. It creates millions of "could be" humans just to kill them off and recycle what's left over. The weather doesn't think twice about wiping out thousands of people. Yes, nature is quite immoral.

 

Morality is the result of we humans trying to figure out which actions to avoid and which ones to take part is so as to make ourselves and the people around us happy.

 

But that's just us. The universe doesn't care what we think about ethics.

Edited June 5, 2015 by KenBrace

[MooNiNite]

and bhodidharma went up to all the monks hunched over reading scrolls and threw them out of the temple

[Taomeow]

By the way, "spiritual" means "in communication with spirits, deities and immortals."  Nothing else, contrary to new age beliefs.  It does not mean "good" or "bad," "ethical" or "unethical."  Not even close.

 

"Higher" spirituality means simply that the spirits you can access are more powerful, more securely established in the spiritual world, and more inclined to get involved in your affairs.  E.g. the Jade Emperor is not possible to access unless you are quite extraordinary, while Quan Yin may respond to your need even if all you have is a sincere heart and an incense stick. 

 

Higher spirituality means you are not entirely clueless about where you are and who you're with when you get in touch with the unfathomable world of spirits, deities and immortals.  What's more important, they know you.  If they don't, they can use a lesser spirit to check you out -- anytime! -- e.g., it could be the spirit of the driver you cut off, he cursed you out of his Heart Shen, his Heart Shen effectively informed his Greater Shen of the injustice, the Greater Shen reported it to his all seven subtle bodies, the subtle bodies are in touch with the celestial realm (whether the cut-off driver is aware of it or not), and that's how the Jade Emperor learned that you are an unethical driver, and the consequences of this information reaching him are anyone's guess.  As a Chinese proverb goes, "one walks knee-deep in buddhas."  Meaning, you are as spiritual as the next guy/gal -- because you are surrounded by spirits at all times for all purposes.  Masters, however, are conscious and competent in this situation, while lay folks are not.

 

Profound old lineages are all about this kind of spirituality -- you learn where you are, you learn what to do there, you learn what the consequences of doing or not doing things there might be.  You have free will, to an extent, and destiny, to an extent, to make or break your advancement.  "Advancement" is in the eye of the beholder in taoism and has as much or as little to do with ordinary human values as sewing needles applied to a silk garment with the same needles dropped in your brother's bowl of soup.  The tools may be similar or even identical -- the goals and the outcomes may be worlds apart.