Is internal Kungfu knowledge deliberately hidden?

[dwai]

34 minutes ago, Miffymog said:

God damn you guys!!!

 

You're both coming to the same thing but from different directions. Both full of truth but some how finding contradictions in each other. Neither of you is wrong,  but you some how manage to find errors in each other...

 

keep going though, because  'the fallout' of what you say is really good for us others

As you pointed out, it's just a difference of perspective, that's all. For me, it's a personal choice -- I can either choose to look at the world as a complex system or a mystery to be explored. Just so we're clear, I'm not trying to find errors in freeform's views, but rather, trying to show (somewhat successfully I hope) that there is more than one way to look at/do things. 

 

I see a similar "schism" in seemingly opposing perspectives of looking for differences between things or looking for similarities. For instance, I find more (most) things to be similar, sometimes even to the point of just different names for the same realizations and truths between Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism. To me, finding and focusing on differences is a process of rejection, while finding and focussing on the common ground a process of integration.  From a spiritual perspective, the Truth is One, so different views are different approaches to that One Truth. 

[freeform]

2 hours ago, dwai said:

trying to show (somewhat successfully I hope) that there is more than one way to look at/do things.

Yes

 

In my experience when views are so directly opposite - they’re usually not actually in opposition - just a different facet of the same thing. That’s why I kept pushing for clarity.

 

You clarified when you said you’re looking at complexity from the perspective of learning.
 

I was looking at it as a kind of universal principle.

 

What I call complex I think you described as ‘detailed’... 

 

Complex to me means ‘consisting of many different and connected parts.’
 

Complex has no negative connotation to me. It doesn’t mean difficult. It doesn’t mean chaotic. It means intricately interconnected.

Edited December 14, 2020 by freeform

[Bindi]

Regarding what is complex and what is simple, developing the subtle energy body is a very complex and difficult endeavour, having a ‘non-dual’ realisation re the Self I believe requires extreme simplicity. I think these two approaches are comparing apples and oranges, they simply aren’t comparable. 
 

I am reminded of the blind men all touching a different part of the elephant and believing they know the whole from the part they are touching. I like freeforms  graphic, so much that we don’t even know we don’t know. 

[dwai]

32 minutes ago, Bindi said:

Regarding what is complex and what is simple, developing the subtle energy body is a very complex and difficult endeavour, having a ‘non-dual’ realisation re the Self I believe requires extreme simplicity. I think these two approaches are comparing apples and oranges, they simply aren’t comparable. 

The subtle body already exists. All we need to do is become aware of it. So yes, while it’s not easy, it isn’t complex either. If we follow certain methods prescribed, with time we will develop sensitivity so we can directly work with it. 
 

Both objectives require simplicity. It only seems like subtle body work is complex because of our addiction to complexity. Both require what’s called the path of nivritti or reduction. 

[Bindi]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

The subtle body already exists.

 

Yes, to an extent. Chakras and channels already exist but are most likely to be blocked, whilst dantians exist only as a potential space. 

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

 

All we need to do is become aware of it.

 

From my perspective once aware of any part of this blocked or potential system, I feel compelled to unblock and develop it. Methods to do this vary considerably. 

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

 

So yes, while it’s not easy, it isn’t complex either. If we follow certain methods prescribed, with time we will develop sensitivity so we can directly work with it. 

 

 

Following prescribed methods may well develop the subtle body in ways that the master or school deems worthwhile or true, but I believe all prescribed methods fall short of what is actually possible. 

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

 

Both objectives require simplicity. It only seems like subtle body work is complex because of our addiction to complexity.
 

 

I have consistently found that developing the subtle body in the way my spirit wishes is a very long and complex endeavour. It’s not my addiction to complexity though, rather it’s the immense complexity of the elephant. 

 

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Both require what’s called the path of nivritti or reduction. 

 

[freeform]

12 hours ago, dwai said:

The subtle body already exists. All we need to do is become aware of it.

 

Becoming aware of what exists is certainly an important early milestone.

 

But much of the subtle (and in fact physical) body required for alchemical practice doesn't exist in the untrained.

 

The true dantien doesn't exist in people. The 8 'extraordinary' channels don't exist in the same way in people.

 

13 hours ago, dwai said:

Both require what’s called the path of nivritti or reduction.

 

Some paths require reduction others addition - and others require both reduction and addition (that's the Daoist approach).

 

13 hours ago, dwai said:

our addiction to complexity

 

To me that's a nonsensical statement. One could just as easily say that you have an addiction to simplicity.

[freeform]

13 hours ago, Bindi said:

having a ‘non-dual’ realisation re the Self I believe requires extreme simplicity.

 

Getting a non-dual experience requires simplicity.

 

For this to be more than a temporary experience requires complexity (the setting up of various interconnected conditions).

 

To talk of complexity vs simplicity in this way is like saying yin is better than yang... it seems a bit shortsighted.

[Cleansox]

1 hour ago, freeform said:

 

The true dantien doesn't exist in people.

Does that refer to the ability to store and emit true qi, or to the shift in position and function as Wang Mu describes when talking about the alchemical dantien? 

 

Or both? 

[doc benway]

Interesting direction for this thread to take. Evidence that derailment can be a good thing.

 

In my view, to say things are simple or complex is limiting. They are neither... and both.

 

We see things as we are, not as they are.

Simple and complex are descriptions of how we are experiencing, and interpreting that experience, not so much an accurate description of how things actually are. Both perspectives are equally valid and useful, depending on our needs and place on our individual path at any given moment.

 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, freeform said:

 

Becoming aware of what exists is certainly an important early milestone.

 

But much of the subtle (and in fact physical) body required for alchemical practice doesn't exist in the untrained.

that is not my experience or of those training in the style I train in. What is trained is the ability to focus and develop those for specific purposes, not to build dantiens or the 8 extraordinary meridians.  I can say with some confidence that we (several folks from within our lineage) can do what the famous internet sifus can do. So evidently the training we do works,  irrespective of what conceptualization used. 
 

Of course I know different systems have different ideas about these things. 

 

1 hour ago, freeform said:

 

 

Some paths require reduction others addition - and others require both reduction and addition (that's the Daoist approach).

Not in my opinion. Reduction is in the mental conceptualization. Nivritti is the process of withdrawing, going from out to in and then reducing all the things the mind attaches to — including dantiens and meridians and so on  

1 hour ago, freeform said:

 

 

To me that's a nonsensical statement. One could just as easily say that you have an addiction to simplicity.

I certainly prefer simplicity over complexity. I’ve not seen complex stuff to be very effective in the long term.   

[dwai]

2 hours ago, freeform said:

 

Getting a non-dual experience requires simplicity.

 

For this to be more than a temporary experience requires complexity (the setting up of various interconnected conditions).

 

To talk of complexity vs simplicity in this way is like saying yin is better than yang... it seems a bit shortsighted.

Complex and simple is not the same as yin and yang I’m afraid. Complexity and simplicity are functions of the intellect aspect of the mind. The more the mind sees complexity, the more scattered it becomes. A scattered mind is incapable of seeing the nondual reality of the names and forms. It is only capable of seeing names and forms. 

[Geof Nanto]

8 hours ago, steve said:

Interesting direction for this thread to take. Evidence that derailment can be a good thing.

 

Yes, this has evolved into an interesting discussion, as do many Dao Bums topics. My natural tendency is to just read topics that interest me and contribute silently with my own deep reflection on the subject. However, I appreciate how poorly silence transmits over the web. Hence some words…..

 

A seed sprouts, a plant grows and a flower unfolds. It’s simply following its nature yet the processes are almost infinitely complex.  That to me is the essence of Daoism. My cultivation consists of yangsheng (nourishing life) methods, plus extensive psychological clearing, to better align myself with the forces of Dao. It’s the Dao in all its manifestations (including the divine) that then guides the complexity of subtle new life growing within me.    

 

Sun Bu-er (12th century; China):  
A springlike autumn’s balmy breeze reaches afar,
The sun shines on the house of a recluse
South of the river
They encourage the December apricots
To burst into bloom:
A simple-hearted person
Faces the simple-hearted flowers.  

 

Spirit and energy should be clear as night air,
In the soundless is the ultimate pleasure all along.  

 

Brambles should be cut away,
Removing even the sprouts
Within essence there naturally blooms
A beautiful lotus blossom
One day there will suddenly appear
An image of light;
When you know that,
You yourself are it. 
 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Yueya

[liminal_luke]

The word that sums up advanced simplicity to me is elegance.  A solution to a math problem or a theory in physics can be elegant.  A brushstroke in a painting can be elegant.  I´m no software engineer but I imagine the best programming could be described as elegant.  All of these forms of elegance imply simplicity but it´s a kind of simplicity that comes out of expertise, rather then the false simplicity of the novice craftsperson.  We´re able to be simple only after having mastered complexity.  I don´t imagine Taoist practices are any different.

Edited December 15, 2020 by liminal_luke

[Mithras]

On 12/15/2020 at 8:05 AM, dwai said:

Complex and simple is not the same as yin and yang I’m afraid. Complexity and simplicity are functions of the intellect aspect of the mind.

I always felt that yin yang was more so a representation of non duality and so it can represent quite a bit. For me it tends to show how duality doesn’t actually contradict but instead shows the nondual/equanimity. Complex allows simple to be, everything allows nothing to be, good allows bad to be, vice versa. And while, yin and yang contradict each other separately, they are in truth never separate and are instead necessary for the other arise, creating balance. As for the motions in which yin and yang revolve, the illusion of change is given but in truth yin and yang are balanced at all times. However, that idea in itself seems to be disputed among various practices.

 

Daoism, from what I recall, tends to believe in returning balance to yin and yang through practice. At least that’s part of it, but I could be wrong. Please do tell.

 

Otherwise, practices like zen tend to believe that all things are already balanced, and thus abstain from the effort of trying to balance yin and yang. Though this tends to involve some effort towards not only realizing this but letting go of ones perspective that suggests otherwise.

Whether one sounds cooler or not, both tend to be difficult paths. Hence the knowledge not really being hidden but just genuinely difficult, which is a bit different from the congruency of material sciences.

 

Otherwise, what I find most interesting lately is the spreading of knowledge in the west. Most notably stuff like law of attraction and so on, which deals with how the perceiver and perceived aren’t independent. But it tends to ditch all mental development and goes straight to feeding the egos desires. However, there’s still big potential for people to become spiritually advanced through it. 
 

As far as Its spread, well it’s even popularized on stuff like TikTok. But the general message has also significantly degraded with many off branches going into wierd rules and removing the actual substance. Now it’s more of a new age thing, with more of the negative connotations than positive. I can only expect a lot of people get mislead or caught into something they aren’t ready for. But eh live and learn I guess. Otherwise, this is a really good reference though as to why knowledge might be “hidden”, because it’s an example of typically “classified” information being popularized/publicized.

Edited December 16, 2020 by Mithras

[Maddie]

7 hours ago, Mithras said:

 

 

Quote

Daoism, from what I recall, tends to believe in returning balance to yin and yang through practice. At least that’s part of it, but I could be wrong. Please do tell.

 

I think balancing yin and yang are a step on the path back to Tao.

 

I think the idea is to go towards the simplicity. So first he tried to consolidate the 10,000 things into the five elements and then the five elements into yin and yang and then to balance yin and yang into Tai chi, which is the one and then from there back to the Tao.

 

It's kind of the same idea and Buddhism that you keep letting go and letting go until there's only Nirvana.

 

That makes me wonder if that's what the Abrahamic God is getting at when he said no other gods no idols?

Edited December 16, 2020 by dmattwads

[dwai]

This guy is pretty interesting and he explains the topics we’ve been discussing —

Spoiler

 

He does/demonstrates pretty much the same kind of stuff we do in the temple style system —

 

 

Check out his other videos. 

Edited December 16, 2020 by dwai

[dwai]

11 hours ago, Mithras said:

I always felt that yin yang was more so a representation of non duality and so it can represent quite a bit. For me it tends to show how duality doesn’t actually contradict but instead shows the nondual/equanimity. Complex allows simple to be, everything allows nothing to be, good allows bad to be, vice versa. And while, yin and yang contradict each other separately, they are in truth never separate and are instead necessary for the other arise, creating balance. As for the motions in which yin and yang revolve, the illusion of change is given but in truth yin and yang are balanced at all times. However, that idea in itself seems to be disputed among various practices.

 

Daoism, from what I recall, tends to believe in returning balance to yin and yang through practice. At least that’s part of it, but I could be wrong. Please do tell.

Balance is important irrespective of what conceptual framework is used. Mainly what balance does is allows the mind to be unshackled from taking positions. A balanced mind does not gravitate to extremes, and remaining centered/balanced allows for the mind to be transcended. 

11 hours ago, Mithras said:

 

Otherwise, practices like zen tend to believe that all things are already balanced, and thus abstain from the effort of trying to balance yin and yang. Though this tends to involve some effort towards not only realizing this but letting go of ones perspective that suggests otherwise.

Whether one sounds cooler or not, both tend to be difficult paths. Hence the knowledge not really being hidden but just genuinely difficult, which is a bit different from the congruency of material sciences.

Yes there are two kinds of knowledge  

The transactional knowledge of the transactional reality -- that's stuff one can learn in schools, colleges, by experience etc. In the Vedantic tradition we call this "paroksha" jnana. This includes scriptural knowledge as well. 

There is another kind of knowledge, which is of the absolute reality -- this we call aparoksha jnana -- This can only be known in an instant, via a flash of direct apperception (some teachers might say, a flash of intuition). The Zen tradition would call it "Satori". 

11 hours ago, Mithras said:

 

Otherwise, what I find most interesting lately is the spreading of knowledge in the west. Most notably stuff like law of attraction and so on, which deals with how the perceiver and perceived aren’t independent. But it tends to ditch all mental development and goes straight to feeding the egos desires. However, there’s still big potential for people to become spiritually advanced through it. 
 

As far as Its even popularized on stuff like TikTok too. But it’s general message has also significantly degraded with many off branches going into wierd rules and removing the actual substance. Now it’s more of a new age thing, with more of the negative connotations than positive. I can only expect a lot of people get mislead or caught into something they aren’t ready for. But eh live and learn I guess. Otherwise, this is a really good reference though as to why knowledge might be “hidden”, because it’s an example of typically “classified” information being popularized/publicized.

The "hidden" aspect of spiritual knowledge is really not a "secret" per se. It is "hidden in plain sight".  It seems like it is hidden, obscured, etc etc because the mind tends to focus on complexity. The Truth is direct, simple and ever-present. The balanced mind does not obscure this, as it is literally animated by the very Truth that it seeks. 

[Paradoxal]

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

Yes there are two kinds of knowledge  

The transactional knowledge of the transactional reality -- that's stuff one can learn in schools, colleges, by experience etc. In the Vedantic tradition we call this "paroksha" jnana. This includes scriptural knowledge as well. 

There is another kind of knowledge, which is of the absolute reality -- this we call aparoksha jnana -- This can only be known in an instant, via a flash of direct apperception (some teachers might say, a flash of intuition). The Zen tradition would call it "Satori". 

You have just immensely helped me by saying this. I've never really known what to call it, but I now have a name for it. "Satori"? Do you know of other systems that have names for this as well?

[dwai]

9 minutes ago, Paradoxal said:

You have just immensely helped me by saying this. I've never really known what to call it, but I now have a name for it. "Satori"? Do you know of other systems that have names for this as well?

In Vedanta we call it Aparoksha jnana or Atma jnana or Tattva Jnana or Brahma jnana. 

[freeform]

On 15/12/2020 at 1:48 PM, dwai said:

I can say with some confidence that we (several folks from within our lineage) can do what the famous internet sifus can do. So evidently the training we do works,  irrespective of what conceptualization used. 

 

A bit vague

 

I'm not that interested in what you can do - and more interested in what you become.

 

17 hours ago, dwai said:

The Truth is direct, simple and ever-present.

 

'The truth' - in Daoist thought - is neither simple nor complex... or rather both.

 

Some paths see the 'heavenly' aspects of reality as the 'truth'... (monotheistic religions - and it seems Vedanta (at least Dwaist Vedanta))

 

Other paths see 'earthly' aspects of reality as the 'truth'... (various shamanistic traditions - and even certain aspects of science)

 

Daoism sees truth in both - and never one to the exclusion of the other - two poles of one coin.

 

The further you go from physicality, the more 'simple' things are (moving from the outer perimeter inwards - in the diagram below). The closer you get to physicality, the more complex things are (moving from the centre out). That is the nature of heaven and earth - yin and yang.

 

Simple = basic, or uncomplicated in form, nature, or design

Complex = consisting of many different and interconnected parts.

 

 

On 15/12/2020 at 1:48 PM, dwai said:

I certainly prefer simplicity over complexity. 

 

Which is understandable coming from a Dwaist perspective (not heard who your Vedanta guru is)

 

But to see simplicity as the fundamental truth is to deny one side of the coin (according to Daoist thought.)

 

Every development within one's consciousness has a physical counterpoint in the body - if it doesn't - in Daoist terms, you haven't achieved it - you've just experienced it.

 

In other words:

 

"I'm gonna be rich!": simple

actually becoming rich: complex

 

On 15/12/2020 at 1:48 PM, dwai said:

I’ve not seen complex stuff to be very effective in the long term.  

 

The function of your circulatory system is complex - and it appears to be highly effective - and lets hope for a long time too.

If you mean something like micromanaging some process (like walking) - I hope we're both clear that that's not what we're talking about here (at least that's not what I'm talking about)... Of course mentally directing every subtle muscle movement while walking is not the point (if you just want to get somewhere... but if you're studying locomotion or gait analysis - then complexity - or granularity in distinctions is important).

 

What I'm talking about is perception... if you perceive walking as an abstract thought ("walking")- then yes that's a simple concept - it's simple to understand and to communicate to someone who knows about walking. But to deny that there is a very complex process happening - then that's just willful ignorance.

 

On 15/12/2020 at 2:05 PM, dwai said:

Complexity and simplicity are functions of the intellect aspect of the mind.

 

YEs - they're concepts. As anything we're discussing here can only ever be.

 

But the concepts are pointing to a tangible reality.

 

On 15/12/2020 at 2:05 PM, dwai said:

The more the mind sees complexity, the more scattered it becomes.

 

If your mind gets scattered when observing complexity, then that's a sign of an untrained mind.

 

Similarly when one's mind is only capable of abstraction and simplicity - or is incapable of abstraction (simplification) - these are major issues requiring the services of a neurologist at the very least.

[Maddie]

Getting back to the theme of the OP I would say maybe the deeper inner truths are hidden but not by the teacher but by the student themselves due to their inability to comprehend.

If one has ever tried to talk to the average materialist worlding about spiritual stuff and you can see that they have no idea what is being spoken about then this will be easily understandable.

[dwai]

46 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

A bit vague

 

I'm not that interested in what you can do - and more interested in what you become.

Why not focus on what you need to become instead? What I can become won’t really help you  

46 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

 

'The truth' - in Daoist thought - is neither simple nor complex... or rather both.

 

Some paths see the 'heavenly' aspects of reality as the 'truth'... (monotheistic religions - and it seems Vedanta (at least Dwaist Vedanta))

I’ll let these digs go...attribute to your irritated mind  

46 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

Other paths see 'earthly' aspects of reality as the 'truth'... (various shamanistic traditions - and even certain aspects of science)

 

Daoism sees truth in both - and never one to the exclusion of the other - two poles of one coin.

I can dig this. But the physical is rooted in the nonphysical. 

46 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

The further you go from physicality, the more 'simple' things are (moving from the outer perimeter inwards - in the diagram below). The closer you get to physicality, the more complex things are (moving from the centre out). That is the nature of heaven and earth - yin and yang.

 

Simple = basic, or uncomplicated in form, nature, or design

Complex = consisting of many different and interconnected parts.

 

 

Now there’s something to this. So physical is complex and nonphysical is simple? 
 

So one could get entangled in the complexity of multiplicity of names and forms (physical) or return back to the nondual root (consciousness — non-physical). Not much can be gained from mucking around with the physical beyond a certain point . You might not agree with me, but maybe you’ll understand what I mean someday. 

46 minutes ago, freeform said:

Which is understandable coming from a Dwaist perspective (not heard who your Vedanta guru is)

You wont know him, however I consider Swami Sarvapriyananda as a teacher, though I’m not a formal disciple. Also I’ve had validation on my Vedantic nidhidhyasana by another mentor who is a direct disciple of two Shankaracharyas (doesn’t want to be publicized). 
 

The truth requires no external validation however — it is self evident, and self luminous. When you get it, you’ll know it  

46 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

But to see simplicity as the fundamental truth is to deny one side of the coin (according to Daoist thought.)

 

Every development within one's consciousness has a physical counterpoint in the body - if it doesn't - in Daoist terms, you haven't achieved it - you've just experienced it.

 

In other words:

 

"I'm gonna be rich!": simple

actually becoming rich: complex

 

 

The function of your circulatory system is complex - and it appears to be highly effective - and lets hope for a long time too.

If you mean something like micromanaging some process (like walking) - I hope we're both clear that that's not what we're talking about here (at least that's not what I'm talking about)... Of course mentally directing every subtle muscle movement while walking is not the point (if you just want to get somewhere... but if you're studying locomotion or gait analysis - then complexity - or granularity in distinctions is important).

 

What I'm talking about is perception... if you perceive walking as an abstract thought ("walking")- then yes that's a simple concept - it's simple to understand and to communicate to someone who knows about walking. But to deny that there is a very complex process happening - then that's just willful ignorance.

 

 

YEs - they're concepts. As anything we're discussing here can only ever be.

 

But the concepts are pointing to a tangible reality.

Now we are discussing spiritual knowledge. Names and forms might be tangible to the senses (ie the mind), but they are not what I would consider “reality” in an absolute sense. The process of spiritual knowledge is a process of subtraction, not addition. Unless one sheds the artificial  mind (acquired) and it’s notions, the truth can’t be known. So I insist that simplicity is the way. 

46 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

If your mind gets scattered when observing complexity, then that's a sign of an untrained mind.

I see. So a trained mind can handle complexity and remain un-scattered? 

Would that involve multitasking? Studies have proven that humans are really incapable of multi-tasking, the best the human mind can do, is timeslice single threaded operations more or less efficiently. All one can do is get better at context switching, that’s all. Why do you think when we train for anything, we tackle one thing at a time and slowly introduce additional variables? 

46 minutes ago, freeform said:

 

Similarly when one's mind is only capable of abstraction and simplicity - or is incapable of abstraction (simplification) - these are major issues requiring the services of a neurologist at the very least.

We are talking about esoteric knowledge here — which is a process of withdrawal (nivritti). If you don’t simplify, you will simply fly (away from the kernel of Truth) back to names and forms.  

[Rara]

On 12/12/2020 at 4:37 AM, dmattwads said:

I think MMA did a lot to peel away the mythos and bs of supposed "deep stuff" and showed the mechanics of fighting are rather straight forward.

 

True, but for internal martial arts, very few have a clue. Kung fu still has a bad name. Sure, it might be fairly ineffective in the octogon, but my god... if only people really understood its universal purpose and meaning.

[Rara]

On 12/12/2020 at 4:55 PM, Cleansox said:

If you go in to forums where mma people hang, many seems to have traditional martial arts background, and left...

 

Because people realised by alamgamating various TMA, you get MMA anyway which opens up a whole new world of creativity and evolution in fighting. I'm on boards with it. I just don't do MMA anymore because it's physically terrible for you.

[RiverSnake]

On 12/12/2020 at 6:22 PM, RobB said:

 As one of my teachers said - and he may have been quoting one of his teachers  - 'the secrets protect themselves'.  

 

Yep, the mysteries require mining.