"a student of "John Chang" "

[sunshine]

we all think that we are special and talk with deep meaning in every sentence. but the simple truth is that we are simpler than we think we are.

 

so true

 

basic protocol and courtesy should be understood without the necessary for other to remind ourselves.

 

Well... ah well...

 

 

Harry

[No Cause]

[Matt]

Radu, I see you have decided to repost your original post.

 

I find it interesting how you only seem to see what you want to see, I know this because you you have said nothing about how this Person also in the same post where this came from totally disgraced himeself by saying disrespectful things about his teacher and un neccessary things about his brothers.

 

You then also fail to mention the response to this and also the information about how this person had been giving incorrect teachings and the dangers involved.

 

Can you not see it......its all yuk. And you want to learn from this person.

 

 

I think it is very important for all on this forum to know that Radu has disclosed that he is 14 years old.

 

Since many people on this forum try to offer helpful "advice" and "suggestions" to others in their search for spiritual/alchemical/MA matters, please take into consideration that certain "advice" or "suggestions" may not be appropriate for someone of this age.

 

Radu,

Personally, I would like to offer a suggestion. Zen, Cha'an, or maybe Vipassana might be traditions that you could consider (I am assuming you meditate) and would enjoy.

 

Even if you were allowed to study with David or John Chang, or any other Master (within the yin-yang gong paradigm), you would be required to reach stillnes (no mind/non arising thought) for an extended period of time. This, in itself, is an enormous acheivement and can have very profound effects on your life. Its a great place to start.

 

Peace,

 

M

[vitagong]

I was unaware of his age.......I am even more glad that I spelt it out for him then.

[Adam West]

First of all most know that I am currently a student of David. Everybody sure thinks: "Hey. This guy naturally has to defend his teacher." OR "It simply is not possible for him to even let room for the idea he is following a "dark" path" ---- all just simple "protective mechanisms" to keep up the integrity of ones own personality & identitiy...

 

I completely understand and fully accept a sophisticated adult is capable of this, which I naturally assume you are.

 

Now. I personally feel that as long as we are not even close to the level of these masters it is not reasonable to actually judge them or their deeds.

 

I unreservedly accept this point, and find it to be the central premise that undermines my arguments and gives this tradition the benefit of the doubt, which they deserve; and which is further supported by their miraculous powers, which may indeed reflect significant progress along the path of self-realisation. That is why I only offer prima facie "concerns" and NOT conclusions with a high degree of certainty.

 

It is not the same level but a little like talking about the daily deeds of a politician without being able to look behind the curtain and see all that is happening around him... or like judging how good a family is by their Sunday meetings in church etc. From our point of view we don't know.

 

Yes, if I was to offer a counter argument against myself, I would make your above argument which I find completely compelling, and suggest my arguments are weak for this reason, bordering on being invalid; as the data set is too limited and the conclusions do not compellingly follow from the cited evidence. Further, those conlcusions may not be the best (probabilistic) explanation for the evidence.

 

Now. What then are we doing? We utilize bits of information, mix them with our own ethical understanding and form an opinion, right?

 

Right, a matter of logic and intuition. But based on many assumptions which may simply be false.

 

I want to be honest:

 

I can not distinguish between the truth of:

"Buddha said killing is" & "The Shen of the animal is freed by..."

 

etc.

 

Me neither.

 

The topic of money: this has been discussed in endless ways. I have given my thoughts on the subject. Just to repeat the most important aspects: David's training in Denmark is in no way more or less expensive than a whole bunch of seminars led by all sorts of teachers where noone really is bothered by costs. That he charges in Euro and by the bad dollar/euro exchange rate it sounds unreasonable for Americans... ah well. Years ago I had the same trouble the other way round, wanting to study acupuncture in the states... and believe me: nobody would have reduced their costs for me because the exchange rate was bad.

 

Instead of travelling endlessly and giving a little seminar here or there, acquiring hundreds and hundreds of students he is focussing on less and if he where to charge more that would even be understandable.

 

Regarding what the masters "charge": it is up to us to decide if we want to pay. Not really up to us to judge if their intents are good or bad or reasonable or whatever....

 

I would accept that as fair and reasonable as any other position. I personally would argue against it for my own differing personal reasons and intuitions, but they are in no way any more compelling or valid than the ones you just cited - they just differ. This whole thing is very much a personal matter.

 

yes I know: you have emphasized that at the initial level the costs are reasonable but according to Sean'S... let me just say: we just don'T know what things will cost each peron individually. So. Just don'T worry about it and sure not to make judgement based on some words... one thing though: IF this is a true teaching (which I am inclined to believe) THEN it is worse to pay some more money THEN paying a little less for a nontrue teaching or searching around, or: having to wait 30 years before a teacher even looks at you or or or... I understand that "money" is understood as an alchemical ingredient in some circles of the Taoist arts... so: being willing to invest a certain amount of money (thereby investing time and effort to actually raise it and then invest it) HAS a SPECIFIC quality to it!

 

I completely agree. Money in and of itself is irrelevant. If in a possible world I could receive the very highest teachings and truths and practices conceivable - as if there is such a thing - then of course I would give my every dollar earned for the rest of my life to access those teachings; including both my arms and legs, and my life. Rather, it is a matter of the 'real world' effects of apparently taking so much, from those who generally have not so much - the conscious, yet, indirect suffering and hardship one inflicts on another being by taking so much in the exchange for what amounts in real empirical terms, as so little. A little sharing of one’s time and a communicative exchange of ideas. It is the apparent gluttony and excess which intuitively seems unjustified and inconsistent with higher-mind.

 

The oracle answers: "You can't. You have to decide what to make of it..."

 

Yep, I'm with you there!

 

So: You remember my thoughts on the matrix? IF there IS indeed a matrix (and many believe that actually) THEN there is a question what the bulls actually are?

 

I hear what you are saying and agree on one level. Yet, it would be big assumption to believe they are anything more than what they appear to be. That is prima facie evident; and we would need some compelling support to the contrary, wouldn't we? Yet, that is where intuition comes in, I suppose - indeed it would seem you have stated yours!

 

Just to pose a question...

 

Further: Taking the life force of the bulls was offered to help one person in need who would not be able to cultivate to certain levels otherwise due to some birth condition. How ego-driven is that? If you call the wish of the person to be able to cultivate to a certain level ego-driven... okay. So be it. But in a way all we do towards reaching certain levels is based on ego to certain extent and at least up to certain levels... (one could argue that "ego" one can hardly get out of the equation and that we can just give the one type of "ego" a veratin label and the other one another). So: No example of aquiration of power other than being lifted to a state proper for further cultivation.

 

With such an advanced master and tradition, why not take directly from the Tao? As it is said this is one's true nature, why can one not access one's true nature - realise it? Why such limitations? Because not enlightened, and thus must make use of lessor methods? The Tao is not limited like the creatures who suffer in this taking, and who are, by definition, NOT unlimited like the Tao. Does this not show the limits of the consciousness of the individual and their level of contact and integration with the Tao and their capacity to merge with it, realise it and give expression to their embodiment of it? My experience with the Tao seems to support this premise - but this is an intuition, and is not conclusive in any way. This would be in my estimation, the way of the right-hand path – to open to infinity and give from, and as the Tao; not to take in limitation, from limitation and give in limitation. To take at another's expense, while ignoring their suffering and the extinguishing of their life is reasonably suggestive of something, right? But the question is, suggestive of what? What do we infer?

 

Let me clarify: the bulls were intended for VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERY few who were said to TRULY need it. It was not a mass-event were each student got offered a bull. From the whole group I think it was 2 or 3 people who received the offering. So to say: "as an apparent standard" practice is far from it!

 

A standard practice in that tradition given to those in that particular condition and circumstance as part of their set of traditional practices? I do not know. Certainly, we do know that they did it, and have the ability to do it. One may reasonably assume they learned how to do it from their own tradition – it was passed on to them. Perhaps they discovered it themselves and did it just that one time, never, before and never again - it was exceptional to the rule?

 

The question of "sucking out the life force of another creature" is one I am thinking about. From my limited point of understanding I have troubles with it, but IF what David says IS true, that these masters are able to see the cause and effect on a karmic level I don't know how many hundreds of years into the future and the past... THEN what does my limited understanding mean?

 

That's it! What kind, type, level of consciousness would even consider it, let alone do it? It seems suggestive doesn't it? But you could be right. But, isn't the 'higher will / God’s will / karma' premise used to explain so many cruel and very "human" acts inflicted on other humans and creatures – like suicide bombings, gang rapes, genocide, letting the under-class suffer in squalor and poverty while the upper classes step over them, and shrug their shoulders etc? All in the name of religion and artificially created and sustained socio-political distinctions – separation consciousness? Again, its a big assumption; according to Occam's Razor, there are more reasonably credible and down to earth explanations of most things in every day life, right doctor? We don't need to postulate some abstract ontology to explain it.

 

Regarding the charging of a fee for the forum. First of all: why do you suspect David's acting behing anything Sean does or say? Sean is a student of David but he is still pretty much an own personality.

 

Sean said it, I reasonably assume it was true when he said it, given he has insider knowledge of these things. I have no reason to think he is SO mis-informed and reckless in his statements.

 

I agree my arguments are not compelling, I do not claim them to be. But, I think they raise genuine concerns that nag at us on the edge of our consciousness - I know they would me if I were a committed student.

 

In kind regards,

 

Adam.

Edited December 9, 2007 by Adam West

[Radu]

Nice to meet you all.Thanks for the advice and for clarifying some facts.Thank you Matt for your suggestions.But please stop arguing so much...

Good luck to you all.

Edited December 8, 2007 by Radu

[sunshine]

Nice to meet you all.Thanks for the advice and for clarifying some facts.Thank you Matt for your suggestions.But please stop arguing so much...

Good luck to you all.

 

Good luck on your path, Radu

 

(following the wish of no cause and Radu further discussion is taken off the forum)

 

Harry

[Oolong Rabbit]

question: Can't the same be achieved by other means?

 

Harry's honest answer: I don't know.

Another example: David received the energy of bulls. True. In consequence is depleted level was replenished and he had his "powers" again. But as David pointed out (if I remember correctly) in the process involved was another level working on a karmic level. So once again: reducing the act to power-acquirement is beraping it of the other levels.

 

Let's be honest here, the reason David vampirised the energy from 8 bulls was because he squandered the chi he had cultivated doing silly deomnstrations and giving mild electric shocks to the curious. Then again, maybe that's what his customers expected for five grand.

 

Let me clarify: the bulls were intended for VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERY few who were said to TRULY need it. It was not a mass-event were each student got offered a bull. From the whole group I think it was 2 or 3 people who received the offering. So to say: "as an apparent standard" practice is far from it!

 

 

Isn't this a bit of a whitewash sunshine? I believe the group was pretty small, and there was at least 1 person who refused the treatment, so it was offered to what 25% of the group?

 

The question of "sucking out the life force of another creature" is one I am thinking about. From my limited point of understanding I have troubles with it, but IF what David says IS true, that these masters are able to see the cause and effect on a karmic level I don't know how many hundreds of years into the future and the past... THEN what does my limited understanding mean?

 

And IF it is true that the animal's Shen is raised in the process or "freed" THEN: how cruel is it?

 

Maybe I am alone on this, but violently sucking the life force from another being just intuitively feels wrong. I will be the first to admit that David Verdesi is certainly a very intelligent person, but his arguements and sophistry justifying these actions ring hollow to me. It's the same process the ego uses whenever one tries to rationalize and justify something we inherantly know is wrong or immoral. For all David's intellectual prowess, I see neither wisdom nor compassion in his words and actions.

 

Lastly I will admit I don't really know a great deal about how one would free the spirit of an animal, but the fact that the beasts were reacting with a great amount of fear and anxiety to the point of defecating themselves would lead me to believe the shen was still there.

 

In any event, I hope my intuitions on David and his practice are wrong for the sake of you guys following this path Harry.

 

Brgds!

[rex]

Maybe I am alone on this, but violently sucking the life force from another being just intuitively feels wrong.

You are not alone.

[sunshine]

In any event, I hope my intuitions on David and his practice are wrong for the sake of you guys following this path Harry.

 

Thankx Oolong Rabbit

 

regarding your other thoughts... although I took the discussion outside the forum just a few responses.

 

Are you a vegetarian?

 

I am not. So I have to ask myself if sucking the life force out of a bull, if not of benefit to only the student or even for the bull as well, is not at least to be seen on the same level as being a meat eater. So in a way only those who refrain from eating meat would be not doing wrong. All others could or better should not judge.

 

Regarding "intuitively wrong": there are so many things I felt to be intuitively wrong and they were indeed not. The same the other way round...

 

Let's be honest here, the reason David vampirised the energy from 8 bulls was because he squandered the chi he had cultivated doing silly deomnstrations and giving mild electric shocks to the curious. Then again, maybe that's what his customers expected for five grand. [...] For all David's intellectual prowess, I see neither wisdom nor compassion in his words and actions.

 

Let's be honest here. You judge without having been there, not knowing all variables in the equation and purely based on personal feeling. I don't know why you run this agenda but it is there indeed... all you say about David the way you feel it might be true and it might be not. That is the trouble with most things... one thing is sure though: you haven't met David and interacted with him I know. I know. There are students of his who haven't stayed and might feel today he is wrong. But then only those can actually share a true impression.

 

Lastly I will admit don't really know a great deal about how one would free the spirit of an animal, but the fact that the beasts were reacting with a great amount of fear and anxiety to the point of defecating themselves would lead me to believe the shen was still there.

 

This is just an intellectual game: I have stated elsewhere and repeat. If there is a matrix THEN... what then is the fear of the bull, what is the bull? Of forum I gave another example: when you cut the head of a chicken often the body still runs around... would you say the chicken is running in fear? It is a body being triggered by nerve stimuli etc. etc. etc.

 

You think I am serious? You think I am cruel?

 

I love animals but above I consider a possibility.

 

I tend to avoid putting things as facts, especially because I am not at any level to truly realize truth. And I tend to avoid to judge the capabilities of those who actually have them from the point of view of someone who has not.

 

 

Harry

[portcraig]

It doesn't seem right to me either. People who think it is okay keep coming up with reasons why it is all right. Like only a few people did it and we freed the shen from the bull. Give me a break.

Edited December 10, 2007 by portcraig

[sunshine]

It doesn't seem right to me either. People who think it is okay keep coming up with reasons why it is all right. Like only a few people did it and we freed the shen from the bull. Give me a break. Do you guys really desire "powers" that much?

 

Craig, I respect you. There is only one right or wrong in what we discuss. We all share our personal views and feelings about things but at the end of the day each one of us can just hope that what we did up to then was proper. I honestly believe we can not know for sure from the position we are at now. IF we accept the possibility that all arguments against it are true, we by all means should accept the possibility that all contrary explanations are equally possibly right. We just decide for one or the other... I seriously do not know why this "power-thing" sticks so much with you... to me this all sure is not about powers and the "benefit" of the powers talked about has been given on several accounts: it is not about the powers themselves...

 

 

Harry

[portcraig]

Forget about the powers. Why do you want to follow this path? Stealing chi from bulls to fill the Dan Tien? Does that sound right? In my opinion I would suggest finding a Master to study with who you think is enlightened, that you feel happy around, and you don't have these nagging questions in your mind if something the Master is doing is right or wrong. Craig

Edited December 10, 2007 by portcraig

[sunshine]

In my opinion I would suggest finding a Master to study with who you think is enlightened, that you feel happy around, and you don't have these nagging questions in your mind if something the Master is doing is right or wrong. Craig

 

This is indeed interesting Craig. I have met people in the past whom I felt totally confident with in order to find out later... so nagging questions are okay with me if they help me to stay away from blind followship and belief.

 

The question if someone is enlightened or not I can hardly answer

 

 

Harry

[portcraig]

Well good luck if you decide to continue studying with David and Sifu Jiang.

Edited December 10, 2007 by portcraig

[DentyDao]

Edited December 9, 2007 by seandenty

[vitagong]

[DentyDao]

[portcraig]

Edited December 10, 2007 by portcraig

[vitagong]

Sean thank you for proving my point and also I can see you have no idea where I am coming from, so I see no point in continuing this.

 

Beliefs and faiths will always only be that. Been a Cook for a few days and talking to a few Famous chefs and having a few great meals does not make one qualified in my books. Days is a fair comparision when looking at what it takes.

[DentyDao]

Edited December 9, 2007 by seandenty

[sheng zhen]

Ive read this thread with great interest!

 

My first thought about this is why is killing animals worse than killing plants or insects? We step on ants, kill spiders with our bare hands, and do all sorts of really cruel things to innocent flowers and just to watch them slowly die in our window while really enjoying it and feeling our lives are enriched by it!

 

Our culture, based on reductionist science and a descartian worldview, say that mankind is worth the most. The needs of mankind is actually worth more than nature itself. Animals come second, then plants, then minerals. Plants and minerals dosent have souls and dosent feel pain so we can do whatever we want with them. Animals do feel pain, but they dont have souls so we can kill them and eat them if we kill them in a humane way. This is the collective consciousness. Some scientist have shown that fish dont have emotions so we dont even have to worry about how we kill them. Its just so terribly stupid...

 

The ones that are a little bit enlightened in our culture see that animals have souls. To them it is just as wrong to kill an animal as it is killing a human. But they still dont see plants as having souls. They feel the beauty of God and nature while picking and killing the beautiful and innocent flowers. So it all comes down to perspective or level of enlightenment.

 

What happens if you change your perspective and see every single being in nature as a living, breathing, developing individual? Do you go about killing animals and plants without any remorse? Or do you still feel that killing animals is worse than killing plants? Or do you stay completely still, not moving at all in fear of killing some smal bug or making the floor hurt by stepping on it? Do you die of starvation?

 

What would happen if you could communicate with the flowers you pick? Would you pick it if it sceamed in pain? What happened if you could hear what the grass feel when you step on it? What would happen if you could communicate with the soul of the carrots you eat?

 

If you see every single atom around you as living, breathing and interacting with everything else, how do you realate to it?

 

Im just asking...trying to see things from other perspectives than the culturally induced psychosis - which is believing that human beings are intelligent enough to know what should and should not be

[Adam West]

Hi Sean,

 

I and some others in this tread have been wondering if you would be so kind and generous as to share your personal point of view and understanding on the questions raised in the below paragraph from the ongoing discussion? Please see below:

 

"With such an advanced master and tradition, why not take directly from the Tao? As it is said this is one's true nature, why can one not access one's true nature - realise it? Why such limitations? Because not enlightened, and thus must make use of lessor methods? The Tao is not limited like the creatures who suffer in this taking, and who are, by definition, NOT unlimited like the Tao. Does this not show the limits of the consciousness of the individual and their level of contact and integration with the Tao and their capacity to merge with it, realise it and give expression to their embodiment of it? My experience with the Tao seems to support this premise - but this is an intuition, and is not conclusive in any way. This would be in my estimation, the way of the right-hand path – to open to infinity and give from, and as the Tao; not to take in limitation, from limitation and give in limitation. To take at another's expense, while ignoring their suffering and the extinguishing of their life is reasonably suggestive of something, right? But the question is, suggestive of what? What do we infer?"

 

In essence, we are wondering why the master in question "cannot" or simply "did not" access the same or equivalent energy and end result - the healing and energy replenishment - by drawing it directly from the Tao, rather than from the bulls, as it were? Why make use of, or rely upon intermediaries when one can – as it would seem, as a realised master – simply operate directly on the subject at the level of the Tao? We see this at the most basic and rudimentary level in spiritual healing such as in Reiki and so forth. I can do this myself, with third party observable, objective results in the form of years of spiritual healing work with family and friends. I am empowered, simply invigorated when reaching out with my consciousness and making contact with That-Which-Is; and the energy and power that flows through me and into the patient is easily felt by both of us. Yet, this is very low level stuff as compared to an apparent master and simply shows contact can be made and effects felt by others. What must a master be able to achieve - complete healings or instantaneous materialisations? Of course this is a rare level of mastery, yet it is well documented in many, many traditions throughout the world - at least as much as the existence of any said miracle can be; thus, what level of master are we really talking about with LSD?

 

Many thanks for taking the time to share!

 

In kind regards,

 

Adam.

Edited December 9, 2007 by Adam West

[rex]

My first thought about this is why is killing animals worse than killing plants or insects?

Killing is perhaps a regrettable necessity in worldly life, but for me at least, as a method for spiritual cultivation it is an anathema.

[Oolong Rabbit]

Thankx Oolong Rabbit

 

regarding your other thoughts... although I took the discussion outside the forum just a few responses.

 

Are you a vegetarian?

 

I am not. So I have to ask myself if sucking the life force out of a bull, if not of benefit to only the student or even for the bull as well, is not at least to be seen on the same level as being a meat eater. So in a way only those who refrain from eating meat would be not doing wrong. All others could or better should not judge.

 

No spin doctoring please Harry. The question at hand isn't about the morality of eating meat. We can bring that up in a seperate thread if you like.

 

Regarding "intuitively wrong": there are so many things I felt to be intuitively wrong and they were indeed not. The same the other way round...

 

In my humble opinion, our higher self always knows what is "right" and "wrong", but the ego clouds the truth. When I find myself trying to rationalize and justify a given action, then it is usually a sure sign that the ego is at play for it's own self serving desires.

 

Let's be honest here. You judge without having been there, not knowing all variables in the equation and purely based on personal feeling. I don't know why you run this agenda but it is there indeed... all you say about David the way you feel it might be true and it might be not. That is the trouble with most things... one thing is sure though: you haven't met David and interacted with him I know. I know. There are students of his who haven't stayed and might feel today he is wrong. But then only those can actually share a true impression.

 

I wasn't at the Nazi holocaust or in Cambodia during the reign of Pol Pot, but I can certainly form an opinion based on the facts and accounts provided by those that were there. My agenda is simply that I feel these practices may be improper, and also that some of the characters and actions around these practices seem dubious. At best some of the practices are fraudulent, at worst... well I will leave that one alone for the time being.

 

This is just an intellectual game: I have stated elsewhere and repeat. If there is a matrix THEN... what then is the fear of the bull, what is the bull? Of forum I gave another example: when you cut the head of a chicken often the body still runs around... would you say the chicken is running in fear? It is a body being triggered by nerve stimuli etc. etc. etc.

 

 

The whole Matrix idea is a very slippery slope, and I believe ultimately leads one to the terrible "isms" of despair: skepticism, relativism, nihilism, solipsim etc... You might find the Spanish existential philosopher Miguel de Unamuno interesting in this regard. Here is the gist of his magnum opus Tragic Sense of Life: The thing that man fears most is death. The thought that our ego eventually dissolves into nothingness terrfies us on the most basic level. On the other hand, the thing that man cherishes the most is his ability to reason. But the concepts of the soul, eternal life and other metaphysical beliefs that guaranty our survival after death run contrary to reason. Unamuno views Reason is the universal dissolvent. We can use it to doubt anything: God, religion, truth, morality, cause and effect. When followed through to it's logical conclusion however, reason ultimately turns on itself like the ouroboros devouring its own tail. Reason can be used to doubt itself. Where does one go from there? You can basically collapse into the despair of the "isms": skepticism, relativism, nihilism, solipsim etc.... or you can cling onto the life raft of faith. Of course Unamuno believes faith is the best option. Why? Because faith is the only way we can come to terms with that most terrible fear of complete obiteration after death.

 

This philosophy had a profound influence on me. I have faith that there is an ordered principle to the universe. Call it what you like, the Tao, God, the Jade Emperor etc... I also have faith that I have a higher self which is intimately connected to this ordering principle. When someone presents me with reason-based rhetorical arguments that run contrary to what my higher self tell me, I always opt for the latter.

 

You think I am serious? You think I am cruel?

 

I love animals but above I consider a possibility.

 

You wanna know what I think? I think you overthink things brother.

 

I tend to avoid putting things as facts, especially because I am not at any level to truly realize truth. And I tend to avoid to judge the capabilities of those who actually have them from the point of view of someone who has not.

 

 

Harry

 

I sincerely hope you find truth Harry. It may not be as far away as you seem to think.

 

Brgds

 

O.R.