On the nature and utility of 'goal posts' in meditative and energetic practice

[Shadow_self]

3 hours ago, Creation said:

The Mahasi Sayadaw lineage equates stream entry with cessation experience. Ingram's practice was in this lineage, and he took his cue from them when he equated permanent dropping of the subjective center of experience with arhatship. 

Cessation experience and "Cessation without return" are a universe apart though

 

The former is a common phenomena, the Latter ,  Anupaada Nirodha (forgive my spelling) is the end of the path as far as I understand it

 

I image just like so many others, he has lowered the bar as many times as a game of limbo 

[awaken]

7 hours ago, Wilhelm said:

I agree 🙏 for clarification I am attempting to prompt discussion around a topic that I find interesting as I am between practice sessions and this happens to be a discussion group.

This is a remarkable accomplishment indeed - full discernment of truth in all the classics.  Is it the sort of accomplishment that requires a teacher's validation?  And if not, if it's something that is 'simply known', what's to prevent someone from deluding themself into believing they achieved this accomplishment?

 

You have no way to prevent it, because your level is not enough.
The only thing you can do is to find out the fundamental classics and understand the fundamental classics, so that you have the minimum judgment ability.

 

你是沒有辦法防止的，因為你的程度不夠。
你唯一能做的就是找出根本經典，看懂根本經典，這樣你就有最起碼的判斷能力。

 

This is a question that you cannot get an answer by asking.
You have to prove it through your own practice.

But if you don't have classic guidance, you will lose the big picture.
For example, on the topic of consciousness, if you don’t have the guidance of the classics, you will be misled by false masters and use the focus of consciousness excessively, which is a very big pit.

 

這個問題是你無法透過「問」的方式得到答案的。
你必須透過親自的修煉實踐才能證明。

但是如果你沒有經典的引導，你會失去大方向。
例如意識這個主題，如果你沒有經典的引導，你會被假大師所誤導，過度的運用意識焦點，這是一個非常大的坑。

 

All enlightened people must face the theme of "consciousness", which in Taoism is "Shen".

 

所有的覺悟者都必須面對「意識」這個主題，在道家來說，就是「神」。

 

 

False gurus will teach you various techniques to overuse your focus of consciousness and get all kinds of feelings.

This trap, for a person who is familiar with the fundamental classics, can be easily broken.

But for a person who has never read the classics, it is very easy to fall into the pit.

 

假大師會教你各種技巧，讓你過度運用你的意識焦點，從而獲得各種感受。

這個陷阱，對一個熟讀根本經典的人來說，是輕而易舉可以破解的。

但是對一個從不閱讀經典的人來說，是非常容易陷入的坑。

Edited January 24, 2023 by awaken

[awaken]

6 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

@awaken

It seems no one has a good definition of Qigong(氣功). Since your Chinese and English are very good, I would love to hear the insight from you in both languages. Would you please give us a little introduction in Qigong in a simplest way as possible? Thank you!

Edited 1 minute ago by ChiDragon

 

 

My English is translated through Google Translate.

I am a practitioner. To me, qigong is just a tool for building a foundation.

I neither learn nor teach Qigong.

 

我的英文都是透過google翻譯的。

我是一個修行者，氣功對我來說，只是築基的工具。

我不學也不教氣功。

[doc benway]

I voted "I don't know."

 

On 1/22/2023 at 5:47 PM, Wilhelm said:

Currently I'm aware of two specific approaches to the 'goal posts' written about in the classics of various traditions, and I'll try to briefly give my impression as well as the common criticism of each.

First there is the 'literal' approach - where many of the core classics are taken to describe things more or less exactly as they happen as one develops in their art.  A common criticism is that many of these descriptions are fantastical and so should be dismissed as nonsense and dogma.  There are countless examples but I have one at top of mind from an interview I watched today where the practitioner of a specific style of Buddhist methods had stated that the classical description of the Anagami being free from sense desires was nonsensical because he believed himself to be an Arahant and knew others who believed themselves to be Arahants and they were all experiencing sense desires.  These individuals represent the second 'camp', which I'll describe in brief next.

 

Believing oneself to be an arahannt, one is already lost.

Belief is a mental construct created in the absence of knowing, an acceptance of another's claim.

It has no place and no value on the path, IMO, especially with respect to one's own level of attainment.

It can only ever be an obstacle and a huge one at that. 

(ok, words like "no place," "no value," and "only ever" are a bit strong but not far from the truth)

 

Whether the classical definition of an arahant is literal or figurative is irrelevant to the practice and the practitioner.

As Liminal_Luke points out and as my teacher often says in retreat when asked questions about things like enlightenment and rainbow body... let's concern ourselves with that when we get there. It's not very helpful right now. 

It does not change what we do if we are practitioners.

For me it is far better to simply admit... I don't know....  and continue to practice.

When it comes, you will know - it is unquestionable...  then continue to practice.

If there are still sense desires, you need to be honest with yourself, allow the disappointment to be there in all its glory.... and continue to practice. 

 

On 1/22/2023 at 5:47 PM, Wilhelm said:

This second group also studies the classical texts but as alluded to above believes some of the texts to be too fantastical to be taken literally.  A common example are those who believe the classical description of Siddhis are mostly nonsense, and even if a person in this second camp might consider them real - they're often considered an unnecessary 'side quest' of sorts and probably a deviation from the true path.  A common criticism of this camp is that they are moving the goal posts to fit their experience.

 

Believing the texts to be too fantastical to be taken literally is also an obstacle.

It means one is already projecting their misguided sense of limitations on something they know essentially nothing about. 

This belief will color and distort the practitioner's experience and influence their progress negatively.

The conceptual games played by the lunatic that lives in one's head and claims the title "me" have nothing to do with spirituality or cultivation.

It's more like gossip or playing a word jumble.

Fact is, they are the obstacle. 

 

On 1/22/2023 at 5:47 PM, Wilhelm said:

So what do you think the nature of the supposed signs of attainment are in your own arts?  Are these laid out literally in the classics, or were the descriptions somehow metaphorical or at least non-literal, and if so - how?  And whether you take a literal or metaphorical interpretation - how specifically would you confirm the validity of your accomplishments?  

 

The nature of the supposed signs of attainment in my practice are changes, some subtle and some profound, that occur in my life and relationships; tangible changes that others often notice before I do.

There are very many signs related to different practices and levels of progress.

In the classic teachings there are literal signs described, there are figurative signs, there are metaphors, there are examples, there are many different ways that the ancient masters attempted to transmit very precise knowledge that is essentially ineffable. 

 

The method for discerning and validating one's progress in my adopted tradition is threefold -

1. Listen to the teachings of a qualified master and reflect on them

2. Actualize the teaching in your own experience

3. Compare your experience to the various signs, metaphors, and descriptions in the classic writings

When all three come together and are consistent, you can be confident in your progress.

 

On 1/22/2023 at 5:47 PM, Wilhelm said:

If a teacher or senior validates them for you - what is it about them or your relationship to them that causes you to believe and trust them and their interpretation?

 

Nothing

One must actualize the teachings in one's own practice, compare that to the teacher's instructions, and to the classic writings. If all three converge and agree, that is validation. It is an error to trust even the greatest teacher and their interpretation. Equally risky to trust one's experience alone. If one finds it difficult to understand something it is perfectly OK to let that something go - there is little value in believing or disbelieving.

Far better to acknowledge that one doesn't know or doesn't understand and allow oneself to be open to the possibility that a deeper and clearer understanding, perhaps to the level of knowing, will arise at some point. 

 

On 1/22/2023 at 5:47 PM, Wilhelm said:

If you validate it for yourself - how do you know you're not moving the 'goal posts' in your interpretation to match your experience?

 

It is very difficult.

In fact, I would say this is almost always the case if you are not connected both to a living person that has gone before as well as the classic teachings of a credible lineage as a benchmark and reference. 

Of course there are exceptions to every rule.

And all of this is nothing other than my subjective and biased opinion.

[Wilhelm]

10 minutes ago, steve said:

The method for discerning and validating one's progress in my adopted tradition is threefold -

1. Listen to the teachings of a qualified master and reflect on them

2. Actualize the teaching in your own experience

3. Compare your experience to the various signs, metaphors, and descriptions in the classic writings

When all three come together and are consistent, you can be confident in your progress.

Thank you 🙏 this is wonderful

[Creation]

2 hours ago, freeform said:

What do people think of Ingram?

 

I only recently came across him in the guru Viking podcast. He sure like his phenomena! 

Ingram's influence is due to his book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha and his forum Dharma Overground, which initiated the Pragmatic Dharma movement some 15 years ago.  The reason he just talks about phenomena and magick on podcasts these days is because the influence of this work is already so complete and pervasive among Buddhists whose primary exposure to meditation instruction is through the internet. 

 

He is an emergency room physician who is extremely technical and emphasizes good maps of the territory experienced in meditation, who simultaneously takes the possibility of massive perceptual shifts that can result from meditation seriously while being skeptical of traditional claims that as a result of these shifts you will be unable to take certain actions or feel certain emotions.  This appeals to highly technical and rational people; as Wilhelm said, he inspired thousands to take up very serious meditation practice, and explore dramatic shifts in consciousness and perception, who would have otherwise been completely uninterested in Buddhism.  The author of famous Bayesian Rationalist blog Slate Star Codex is a high profile example.  As I mentioned, his practice lineage is through Mahasi Sayadaw, who considers jhana unimportant, only the progress of insight through vipassana is considered important. 

 

Much of what he describes as the results (and the non-results, as mentioned above) of his practice match what certain Buddhist non-duality authors I like say, who also emphasize insight to the exclusion of (hard) jhana, energy practices, or other aspects of the path, thought the practices Ingram utilizes (from Mahasi) are completely different and don't personally appeal to me.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Creation

[ChiDragon]

2 hours ago, awaken said:

I am a practitioner.

 

May I ask what are you practicing?

[refugeindharma]

11 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

Aside from this guy

 

Who exactly is walking around  in the West claiming to be an Arhat?

 

And what has it got to do with Burma?

More recent is Frank Yang, and I believe Kenneth Folk may have been in this camp too altho I'm not certain about this, he is a contemporary teacher alongside Daniel Ingram and that generation. The late Culadasa never claimed Arhatship I believe, however he did seem to allude to it in some of his prior lectures or Q&A's, this evidently however was clearly not the case after his scandals came out into the public

 

Ingram and Folk both practiced under the Mahayasi Sayadaw lineage from Burma, which came up with the idea of the 16 stages of insight (or "The Progress of Insight"), which apparently maps out the progress and stages that leads one to Arhatship or "4th path" as they term it. The Mahasi lineage focuses heavily on vipassana or noting practice and do not place great emphasis on jhanas

Edited January 24, 2023 by refugeindharma

[refugeindharma]

4 hours ago, freeform said:

What do people think of Ingram?

 

Respect the dude as he has put in some serious hours into the practice but don't think he is on the mark. He's influenced a lot of people to get into meditation or Buddhism through his MCTB book. The others in this thread above have shared a good summary of him I think.

 

MCTB was a pretty solid book at the time it came out because compared to everything else that was out there at the time, nothing quite compared. Other books were either mindfulness and light Dharma stuff OR the suttas, classical texts, Visuddhimagga type stuff (which people find dry, boring, and repetitive), but then this Western guy came out of nowhere claiming that he was an Arhat (a lay Arhat at that!!) and went into a lot of the details and nuances of his path and how he got there. 

 

On top of that, the contents within the book were well suited to our Western linear step by step progress focused minds as there was a 16 stages or steps of insights that leads one to awakening or "full enlightenment"... Alongside the promise that this is all possible within this lifetime, hell even in just a few years! 

 

Shit, I got the idea that it was even possible to hit stream entry from just doing one 10 day Goenka retreat by applying the vipassana noting technique if you're really diligent enough (This may have been from his forum though and wasn't explicitly said in the book.) 

 

I used to lurk a bit on the Dharma Overground (or when it was called Dharma Underground?) forum that he hosts. I didn't see anything that stood out to me but there were sincere practitioners found there. The ones who claimed to hit 4th path (or Arhatship) using the "Progress of Insight" stages imo never seemed to get to this stage of:

 

Quote

They understand: ‘Rebirth is ended, the spiritual journey has been completed, what had to be done has been done, there is no return to any state of existence.’

 

Once they hit 4th path, they generally felt there was still more work to be done, and that's when they would generally shift over to energetic practices as what most of these people practiced till then was all "dry insight" with the vipassana noting technique espoused by the Mahasi Sayadaw lineage... 

 

I think due in a large part to Ingram, this led to others such as Culadasa (of The Mind Illuminated) entering into the scene and influencing a lot of people to get into meditation and so forth, especially the more rational and logical Western minded types.

 

An issue I see with all this though is that it's watered down the dharma and shifted the goal post of enlightenment/awakening even closer, as these people have all said that it's much easier than people make it out to be to become awakened... Just check out the "streamentry" subreddit to get a feel for what I mean

 

The first of the 8 fold noble path however is to have "right view / understanding"...

 

Another contemporary teacher that was a part of Mahasi Sayadaw's lineage and supposedly went all the way to 4th path was Bhante Vimalaramsi, thereafter he left to do his own thing as he felt he "had not done what had to be done". (Vimalaramsi is considered a controversial monk in his own right by some however, so take this with a pinch of salt!) 

 

The whole dichotomy of hard jhanas vs soft jhanas, jhana vs vipassana viewpoints and debates etc, at least in the Western sphere, tend to stem imo from Mahasi Sayadaw's lineage and Goenka practitioners against those who are of the more "hardcore" meditation lineages such as Pa Auk, Thai Forest, or Chan traditions and so forth. 

 

I've never met Daniel Ingram, have only exchanged messages with him a few times, and read his book and posts on his forums from quite a few years back. So that's where I'm coming from for context

[awaken]

3 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

 

May I ask what are you practicing?

 

I wrote a lot, can you read the text yourself?

 

我寫了很多，你可以自己看文嗎？

 

I practice alchemy（Dan Dao）

 

我練丹道

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2023 by awaken

[ChiDragon]

25 minutes ago, awaken said:

 

I wrote a lot, can you read the text yourself?

 

我寫了很多，你可以自己看文嗎？

 

I practice alchemy（Dan Dao）

 

我練丹道

 

 

 

Yes, I can.

是，我可以

[freeform]

Thanks for the very helpful background on Ingram.

 

I felt that he’s kinda at the centre of a lot of the Buddhist meditation scene in the west - but when you listen to him, there’s no Dharma at all…

 

I found that interesting.

 

I think that relates to the original question… because it seems that a group can come along and make a new model of the process of spiritual attainment - and as a result the classical descriptions of attainment are dropped and meditative phenomena adopted as the new milestones of progress.

 

For me that’s such a shame… but I can see how coming across these things might open an avenue to genuine dharma for some.

 

I wonder whether someone who considers themselves enlightened would be willing to question their assumption and see it from the classical perspective (where they’re probably on the first or second rung of an almost infinitely tall ladder).

[freeform]

8 hours ago, Wilhelm said:

'Big Buddhism' took notice of him enough to put out an article

Thanks for that - that made me spray my tea all over myself 😂

[freeform]

.

Edited January 24, 2023 by freeform

[Mandrake]

9 hours ago, freeform said:

What do people think of Ingram?

 

I only recently came across him in the guru Viking podcast. He sure like his phenomena! 

 

Was discussed here years ago, like everything : )

Some of what he comes up with is quite idiosyncratic and I suspect the effect of the methods that he uses. It was years ago I read his book but something about how one continuously according to him will cycle through the 16 vipassana phases even after attaining arhatship seemed off to me. I've encountered too many lineages and practices and don't recognize this as universal at all. Though, I've seen the other end: specific practices result in unique and exclusive experiences, goals and sometimes permanent side-effects, moulding the psyche, body and personality for better and worse.

 

 

M

 

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

14 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

Yes! Lazy people!! False masters! You will only be more confused and decieved!

 

You need

 

Lambs liver and beef marrow

 

No wait.

 

Chicken liver and duck marrow

 

Dammit, that's not it either

 

Crows liver and hares marrow.

 

That's it   Only then you'll be a real person! 

 

(Anyone got any recipes for crows?) 

I can smell your dirty transfer method qi through my screen!

[C T]

Imho (Buddhist) meditation practice, to be authentic, requires a balanced alternation of samatha and vipassana. Its a basic requisite, and personally, I don't give much credence to schools or individuals, regardless of reputation and claims, that ignore one or the other in their jingles. 

 

Excessive focus on vipassana can often cause burn out. Its also believed to exarcerbate narcissistic tendencies. Sometimes the burn out is quietly subtle, enough that its imperceptible to the practitioner or to those in his or her orbit. I've known a couple of hard-core vipassana dudes who were deeply committed but also very highly strung all the time, but were clever at disguising their condition due to their level of mental dexterity and self control. 

 

Excessive absorption in samatha often leads to unreasonable and unrealistic views, many of which are prevalent in today's new age movements. 

[Taoist Texts]

On 1/23/2023 at 2:47 AM, Wilhelm said:

Are these laid out literally in the classics, or were the descriptions somehow metaphorical or at least non-literal, and if so - how? 

If these were metaphorical/not-literal then the reader would not know what the description means so who would read a useless book? Why would any one write a useless book? Obviously  the goalposts are literal.

On 1/23/2023 at 2:47 AM, Wilhelm said:

If a teacher or senior validates them for you - what is it about them or your relationship to them that causes you to believe and trust them and their interpretation?

Nothing.  First of all such validation is  useless. If the book says at some point i will see a white light then either there is the light or there is not. What is there to validate? Second of all if a teacher telepathically knows what is going on in the mind/body of his student then they both are deluding themselves. Same  for the mutual body fluids tasting. Your goalposts are your responsibility only.

On 1/23/2023 at 2:47 AM, Wilhelm said:

if you validate it for yourself - how do you know you're not moving the 'goal posts' in your interpretation to match your experience?

But thats the thing with literalness. There is nothing to interpret or to move. Either the white light is there or it is not.   A reasonable person would not and cannot lie to himself. Unfortunately 'our arts' attract a very significant percentage of unreasonable persons.  And there is no reasoning with them. 

[dwai]

I voted “other” because sometimes the descriptions are literal while other times they are encoded. In the Hindu yoga/tantra world especially, the language used is called “sandhya bhasha” or literally “twilight language”. One needs to be an insider, ie with a teacher who is an insider to understand what is expressed in this language. So, attainments described often mean something completely different than what they mean literally. 
 

 

[Wilhelm]

11 hours ago, awaken said:

 

You have no way to prevent it, because your level is not enough.
The only thing you can do is to find out the fundamental classics and understand the fundamental classics, so that you have the minimum judgment ability.

 

你是沒有辦法防止的，因為你的程度不夠。
你唯一能做的就是找出根本經典，看懂根本經典，這樣你就有最起碼的判斷能力。

 

This is a question that you cannot get an answer by asking.
You have to prove it through your own practice.

But if you don't have classic guidance, you will lose the big picture.
For example, on the topic of consciousness, if you don’t have the guidance of the classics, you will be misled by false masters and use the focus of consciousness excessively, which is a very big pit.

So if I've got this correct, in your view it is necessary to read the 'fundamental classics' to obtain a basic discernment, but it won't be until a further level is reached that we have the discernment to know the entire truth or falsehood of all of the classics (as mentioned in your first post).

 

Is it not possible that our initial readings of the classics will include our own misinterpretations?  Does everyone read the Daodejing and the Yinfujing for the first time and come away with the same understanding?

 

To my understanding this approach leaves no option other than to trust the person who's telling you what the correct classics to read are, and to hope or believe that they have enough attainment so as not to mislead you.

[Wilhelm]

4 hours ago, freeform said:

I think that relates to the original question… because it seems that a group can come along and make a new model of the process of spiritual attainment - and as a result the classical descriptions of attainment are dropped and meditative phenomena adopted as the new milestones of progress.

 

For me that’s such a shame… but I can see how coming across these things might open an avenue to genuine dharma for some.

 

I wonder whether someone who considers themselves enlightened would be willing to question their assumption and see it from the classical perspective (where they’re probably on the first or second rung of an almost infinitely tall ladder).

There's certainly enough people claiming enlightenment in the West that we (me and whoever is interested in this topic) could collect a few instances of them being challenged on their enlightenment in interviews (I had already started to do this when I was writing the OP but decided not to make the thread specifically about Daniel)

[awaken]

15 minutes ago, Wilhelm said:

So if I've got this correct, in your view it is necessary to read the 'fundamental classics' to obtain a basic discernment, but it won't be until a further level is reached that we have the discernment to know the entire truth or falsehood of all of the classics (as mentioned in your first post).

 

Is it not possible that our initial readings of the classics will include our own misinterpretations?  Does everyone read the Daodejing and the Yinfujing for the first time and come away with the same understanding?

 

To my understanding this approach leaves no option other than to trust the person who's telling you what the correct classics to read are, and to hope or believe that they have enough attainment so as not to mislead you.

 

There are many forks in cultivation, reading the classics certainly cannot guarantee that you will not misunderstand, but if you don’t read the classics, the misunderstandings will be even more exaggerated.

If you do not read the classics because you are afraid of being misled by reading them, you are more likely to be misled.

 

修煉的岔路很多，看經典當然不能保證不會誤讀，但是不看經典，誤會就更誇張了。

如果你因為害怕讀經典而被誤導，因而不讀經典，那你被誤導的可能性就更大了。

 

The process of cultivation is to read the classics, cultivate and correct your thoughts at the same time. If you want to be lazy, you will get a conclusion at once, and you will only be deceived by liars.

 

修煉過程本來就是一邊閱讀經典，一邊修煉，一邊修正自己的想法，你想要偷懶，一下子就得到定論，只會被騙子欺騙。

 

Some passages of Tao Te Ching are not easy to be misunderstood, but not all passages are very easy to be misunderstood.

Some passages are very problematic because they have been tampered with. For example, from the Guodian Chu bamboo slips, we can know that many places in the Tao Te Ching have been tampered with.

Then you have to read the Tao Te Ching on the Guodian Chu Bamboo Slips, instead of thinking that the Tao Te Ching is easy to be misunderstood, so you give up reading the Tao Te Ching. In this way, the possibility of you being deceived by the qigong master is greatly increased.

 

道德經有些段落是很不容易被誤解的，不是所有的段落都非常容易被誤解。

有些段落很有問題可能是因為被篡改，例如從郭店楚簡，我們就可以知道道德經被篡改的地方不少。

那你就要去看郭店楚簡的道德經，而不是認為道德經容易被誤解，因此就放棄看道德經。如此一來，你被氣功大師欺騙的可能性就大大的提高了。
 

Even if it is my students, even if I want them to practice, I want them to read classics, some students will still mislead themselves.
So this involves comprehension, people with poor comprehension, people who are obsessed with obsession, basically any effort is in vain.

 

就算是我的學生，即使我要他們實修，我要他們看經典，還是有的學生會自己誤導自己。
所以這牽涉到悟性，悟性太差的人，執迷不悟的人，基本上做任何努力都是白費力氣。

 

If you have read the Tao Te Ching, you will know that Laozi mentioned that people are divided into three levels.

It is almost impossible for the inferior people to practice Taoism.

 

如果你有看道德經，你就會知道老子提到人有分成三個等級。

下等人幾乎是沒辦法修道的。

 

Inferior people are so blinded by desires that they are almost completely unable to practice Taoism.
If a person does not have a transparent mind, he cannot practice Taoism.

So I blocked many people because some people are completely unable to communicate and have no understanding.
Sometimes it is not a question of method, but a question of character.

 

下等人因為內心被慾望蒙蔽的太過嚴重，幾乎是完全沒辦法修道。
一個人如果沒有一顆透明的心靈，是沒辦法修道的。

所以我屏蔽了很多人，是因為有些人是完全無法溝通的，沒有悟性的。
有時候不是方法的問題，而是人品的問題。

 

From my perspective as a teacher, when I meet inferior people, I keep them at a respectful distance.

 

就我從一個老師的角度來看，我遇到下等人，我是敬而遠之的。

Edited January 24, 2023 by awaken

[awaken]

I have said countless times about metaphors.
There is no metaphor, only a group of qigong practitioners can't understand Dan Dao's nouns, because their level is too low.

 

關於隱喻，我已經說過無數次了。
沒有隱喻，只有一群練氣功的人看不懂丹道的名詞，是因為程度太差。

 

If you bring up the term "metaphor", it means that your level is too low, you only have the level of Qi, and you don't have the level of alchemy.

 

你會提出「隱喻」這個名詞，那就表示你的程度太差了，你只有氣的程度，你沒有丹道的程度。

 

The level is so poor, it is because the practice is in the wrong direction.

Practicing in the wrong direction is because you haven't read the classics, and you don't have the right direction.

All these mistakes are linked together.

 

程度會這麼差，就是因為練錯方向了。

練錯方向就是因為沒有看經典，沒有正確的方向。

這一切的錯誤都是環環相扣的。

Edited January 24, 2023 by awaken

[Wilhelm]

22 minutes ago, awaken said:

Some passages of Tao Te Ching are not easy to be misunderstood, but not all passages are very easy to be misunderstood.

Some passages are very problematic because they have been tampered with. For example, from the Guodian Chu bamboo slips, we can know that many places in the Tao Te Ching have been tampered with.

Then you have to read the Tao Te Ching on the Guodian Chu Bamboo Slips, instead of thinking that the Tao Te Ching is easy to be misunderstood, so you give up reading the Tao Te Ching. In this way, the possibility of you being deceived by the qigong master is greatly increased.

Did you know that in the West, for example (I don't know what the situation in the East is), the Tao Te Ching is almost universally seen as a philosophical text, with no implications for spiritual practice?  The most common alternative interpretation is that it is also a political text.  There are very few people here who read it and see its value in spiritual practice.  So have all these people who have read the Tao Te Ching and seen no applications towards spiritual practice made progress towards the Dao?

 

I used this example because many of the other classics like the Yinfu Jing are largely unknown in the West.

[awaken]

9 minutes ago, Wilhelm said:

Did you know that in the West, for example (I don't know what the situation in the East is), the Tao Te Ching is almost universally seen as a philosophical text, with no implications for spiritual practice?  The most common alternative interpretation is that it is also a political text.  There are very few people here who read it and see its value in spiritual practice.  So have all these people who have read the Tao Te Ching and seen no applications towards spiritual practice made progress towards the Dao?

 

I used this example because many of the other classics like the Yinfu Jing are largely unknown in the West.

 

The Tao Te Ching only has a general direction for practice, without details.

So if you only read the Tao Te Ching, unless you are very enlightened, you will not be able to understand the mysteries inside.

As I said before, people's perceptions vary greatly, and you can't talk about all people as if they were at the same level.

Maybe you can only talk about yourself, if you want to talk about all people, and treat all people as the same level, then you will make a huge mistake in logic.

If you are a person who is willing to read the classics, it is absolutely impossible for you to only read the Tao Te Ching. So from what you said, you are not a person who can read classics at all, because you only know the Tao Te Ching and the Yin Fu Jing, and this is far from enough.

Because these two books talk about big principles and big directions, unless you are very savvy, you won't be able to understand them.

I don't think you are very enlightened, because you haven't escaped from qigong yet.

 

道德經對修行只有大方向，沒有細節。

所以你如果只有看道德經，除非你很有悟性，否則你是看不懂裡面的奧秘的。

我前面有說過，人的悟性差異很大，你不能把所有的人都當成相同的水平來談論。

可能你只能談論你自己，如果你要談論所有的人，並且把所有的人都當成同樣的水平，這樣你就會在邏輯上犯下極大的錯誤。

如果你是一個願意讀經典的人，你絕對不可能只有讀道德經。所以從你的說法上來看，你根本就不是一個會閱讀經典的人，因為你只知道道德經，陰符經，而這樣是遠遠不夠的。

因為這兩本書講的都是大原則大方向，除非很有悟性的人，否則是看不懂的。

我不覺得你很有悟性，因為你還沒從氣功裡面脫離出來。

 

Reading the classics may not lead to progress in practice, but not reading the classics but only listening to the bragging of qigong masters may cause more serious problems.

 

看經典不見得在修行上會有進步，但是不看經典而只聽氣功大師吹牛，可能造成的問題更嚴重。

 

Practitioners are like fish in the river, and successful people are like the horns of a dragon or the feathers of a phoenix.
There are many pits in practice, but few people have the ability not to fall into the pit.

 

修行的人如江水裡面的魚，成功的人如同龍的角或鳳的毛。
修行的坑很多，有本事不掉入坑的人很少。

 

If you only want to be lazy and succeed all at once, it is absolutely impossible.

 

如果只想著偷懶，一下子就能成功，那是絕對不可能的。

Edited January 24, 2023 by awaken