Shadow_self Posted August 18 10 hours ago, Daniel said: Did Freeform declare you his public representative? No, Im just using what hes already posted in public, because if I do not, I may end up speaking on matters im not allowed to. But seeing he made it public beforehand - I think its ok to talk about it. Im posting his quotes for two reasons 1. To show you someone else knows about this 2. To make sure my backside is covered by knowing that the information is in the public sphere already 10 hours ago, Daniel said: Lacking that, the man's writing is the clearest most accurate representation. I agree, see the point about visible light. I think you'll find its you having the issue around comprehending his statements. Im crystal clear on it (as are most others) 10 hours ago, Daniel said: You are not Freeform's minister, preacher, or personal emissary. I agree. As of right now, oddly I appear to have had to occupy the role of a translator Which is bizarre, given his words are in plain English 10 hours ago, Daniel said: There's no need to ride on his coat-tails if what you're saying is true. Im definately not doing that But what hes said is true regards the light etc, im just confirming his statements 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel Posted August 18 (edited) 3 hours ago, Shadow_self said: Hopefully the 3rd one will clear up the issues around whether the light manifesting is visible to the naked eye or not Ah. Thank you. I am not concerned with any physical sensations. They cannot be trusted, remember? They're not accurate? That was your assertion early in our conversation? Please correct me if not? Based on your own words: any and all tests which rely on physical sensations to validate progress are meaningless. 3 hours ago, Shadow_self said: Im not exaggerating at all You have someone in your friend-group who claims to have approached omniscience? You've said that you're friends with Freeform? Are you able to contact him and request a visit to the website to discuss the matter? 3 hours ago, Shadow_self said: Ive been exposed to things you have not. Its appears to be bothering you It doesn't bother me. I've already wished you well on your journey. I've already acknowledged that your practice has merit. My advice for you, take it or leave it is: 1) Your experiences do not invalidate the experiences of others. When you attempt to do this, you sound Christian, but, you've stated in the other thread you would like to avoid that. I'm trying to help you achieve your goal, by, letting you know: "Bro, you sound Christian, but you've said that you're not practicing Christianity." 2) Your practice is risky, but, you seem to be neglecting that. 3) The tests you're using to evaluate progress seem to be faulty and error prone. Edited August 18 by Daniel Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow_self Posted August 18 19 minutes ago, Daniel said: Ah. Thank you. The only reason I quoted you earlier was to let you know you completely misrepresented what he was talking about A practitioner that emits visible light at a certain stage Now that we've reached clarity on the matter, the rest of the post does not require a reply, except to state that freeform never made such a claim about being omniscient Not once, Never Here again you seem to be having trouble with comprehending what hes saying, and im unwilling to keep clarifying matters for you So, best of luck, and Peace 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow_self Posted August 18 (edited) 21 hours ago, stirling said: Certainly the Buddha suggested jhanas as training, but didn't mention the aspects you are discussing, which isn't to say they aren't or can't be valid. Having followed the well-known Pali descriptions of jhana practice, I haven't arrived at the same phenomena, and they certainly aren't what led me to complete the path. The Buddha promises the end of suffering. My experience is that these particular proofs or events aren't necessary for that goal. I suppose it depends on the school? some of the rationale for the "proof" in these schools im talking about is below Quote None of that means that I don't find them interesting. Its an interesting topic for sure Quote I admit to being a little confused by Freeform's description of 1st jhana in that last paragraph. The first jhana still includes a "self", thoughts, etc. Oneness doesn't appear until the meditation is formless... You'd have to post a description of first jhana from your own perspective and then id be able to contrast Quote Oh... I've seen some truly unbelievable stuff, seeing a little light emit from someone would be strange, but not the craziest thing I have seen. My point is really that, based on MY understanding of these practices and enlightenment itself, none of these things make sense together. I can elaborate a little on that below Quote Had to look that up, unsurprisingly. Does the practice you are talking about include building an "immortal vehicle"? The tradition : yes, in a manner of speaking My practice currently: Nope, thats a long way above my paygrade, Jhana 1 is the only thing I am focused on for now (along with some other stuff) Quote I can see how someone would want that. It is quite clear to me at the same time that the body isn't any more special than any other aspect of the dharmakaya, and that birds singing, cars driving by, leaves falling, and a cat yawning are all just as much "I" as anything the apparent body does, and none of them are "I". Aha but it is, in these practices. The short explanation would be related to causality, and indeed to dependant origination In one practice we use specific physical locations on the body as an access point to jhanic states This hopefully is a hint into the "form" and formless" terms you hear so often Quote I have 25 years of Dzogchen/Nyingma under my belt, so definitely have heard of those things, and actually witnessed the paranirvana of one of my late teachers. Interesting, perhaps there might be something you would share about that? Quote It isn't that I think these things are impossible, but just that linking them to the jhanas doesn't make any sense to me. Aha, thats a tricky topic, Im not well versed, its so beyond my paygrade but Ill give it a shot It has to do with the focal point of conciousness as far as I know. The reasons the changes happen physically is due to the energetic mechanic, because the reality is, that energy is the bridge between form and formless, or put another way, conciousness and matter The other reason why 4th Jhana being so important because around that area is where the causal body is being tuned into and thats where everything starts to go full fairytale mode (reality completely breaking down around the person) This might be taken in line with what I mentioned earlier about dependant origination Curiously, theres an energetic mechanic that I never understood about the whole manipulation of causality, until I came into contact with the Daoist teachings. I definately cannot detail that except to repeat what freeforms has already said If you consider what the Yin aspect of the soul does, So as that Yin part of the soul is what allows us to grow and transform, the key word here being transform, then what you can take away from that is that it is not only governing form and organisation (ie keeping us incarnate), but also, reorganization I would impore you to contemplate this in line with dependant origination and I think certain things will start to make more sense Thats as much as im willing to detail, and again, only because its already on the board, just in a disorganised fashion Quote I also certainly have experience with using substances and altering consciousness. Haha. Im sure theres some fun stories there Quote How so? That would be beyond what I could say in public im afraid Quote _/\_ _/\_ (P.S forgive me for overly quoting freeform. He's just made it very easy for me to speak on things that I honestly dont know if I should. Seeing as he has already, its better to stick it there so im just not the one putting it out there, rather just repeating/elaborating upon it) Edited August 18 by Shadow_self Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel Posted August 18 8 hours ago, Shadow_self said: Im just using what hes already posted in public No. You're ignoring parts of what's been written, and adding quite a bit to it. 4 hours ago, Shadow_self said: freeform never made such a claim about being omniscient You added the part about omniscience. See below: On 8/12/2024 at 7:08 PM, Shadow_self said: At the depeest level of accessing the Hun, you basically become omniscient. But thats a rare thing So? Do you have someone in your friend-group who is claiming that they have approached omniscience? If not and it's not coming from Freeform, then, from where it is coming? And why are you making this claim without experiential support for it? I'll remind you that you've discouraged book learning. 4 hours ago, Shadow_self said: Here again you seem to be having trouble with comprehending what hes saying I understand well enough. 4 hours ago, Shadow_self said: A practitioner that emits visible light at a certain stage Visible light, as detected through the eye-balls. Got it. How do you intend to see that, if you do not trust the accuracy of your eye-balls? On 8/14/2024 at 2:54 AM, Shadow_self said: its highly inaccurate, and the sensory system has further narrowed our awareness and perception to the point we can only percieve the physical realm, and our inability to move past that keeps us oveindulged, obsessed, constantly gathering the karmic weight from the process of accumulation which keeps us coming back over and over There you go! So, on the one hand you're arguing that the physical senses are inaccurate, but on the other hand you're claiming that perceiving visible light is a valid metric. It makes no sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow_self Posted August 18 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Daniel said: No. You're ignoring parts of what's been written, and adding quite a bit to it. You added the part about omniscience. See below: So? Do you have someone in your friend-group who is claiming that they have approached omniscience? If not and it's not coming from Freeform, then, from where it is coming? And why are you making this claim without experiential support for it? I'll remind you that you've discouraged book learning. All knowledge from all time = omniscient Ive added nothing, and I never would. Who I know, what ive seen and what attainments they have I can assure you, is something I will not be discussing with you I save that for people who demonstrate good manner, good ethics, respect, and the other hallmarks of cultivation I dont see any of that on display here, so that door is firmly closed to you Quote I understand well enough. If only.... Ive asked you multiple times to leave it. Lets see if you're actually able to do so this time Edited August 18 by Shadow_self 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel Posted August 18 12 minutes ago, Shadow_self said: Ive asked you multiple times to leave it. I agreed, with qualification, then you quoted me again. 13 minutes ago, Shadow_self said: Who I know, what ive seen and what attainments they have I can assure you, is something I will not be discussing with you Naturally. Putting it to the test is all but guaranteed to be embarrassing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shadow_self Posted August 19 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Daniel said: I agreed, with qualification, then you quoted me again. Unfortunately The more you quote me (or matters i have discussed here), the more I end up having to post back to correct your incorrect comprehension of it (Not for your sake, for others in fact) So once you can stop doing both of those things, and move on from it, we should be just fine Peace Edited August 19 by Shadow_self 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted August 19 On 8/18/2024 at 10:05 AM, Cobie said: Confucianism/Confusionism Confounding isn't it . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted August 19 21 hours ago, Daniel said: No, it's true. I love it when we agree. And we did. You probably hate it when we agree, because, for you, propagating the conflict is more important and rewarding than supporting our friends and contributing to the forum. 'Friends' apparently are seen as those I happen to agree with . The reason that is so funny is ...... well, ask my friends . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted August 19 1 hour ago, Shadow_self said: All knowledge from all time = omniscient Ive added nothing, and I never would. Who I know, what ive seen and what attainments they have I can assure you, is something I will not be discussing with you I save that for people who demonstrate good manner, good ethics, respect, and the other hallmarks of cultivation I dont see any of that on display here, so that door is firmly closed to you If only.... Ive asked you multiple times to leave it. Lets see if you're actually able to do so this time I think you are about the 5th person here to experience ........ this . It seems habitual . ( Not with you, I mean ) . 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Daniel Posted August 19 1 hour ago, Shadow_self said: So once you can stop doing both of those things, and move on from it, we should be just fine OK. I have noting left to say on the matter. Thank you, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted August 19 (edited) Now that that is finally out of the way ( ? ) ..... To learn, One accumulates day by day. To study Tao, One reduces day by day. Through reduction and further reduction One reaches non-action, And everything is acted upon. Therefore, one often wins over the world Through non-action. Through action, one may not win over the world My lame 'everyday interpretation ' of it is To learn things ; information, detail, forces, interconnections , are 'accumulations' or 'data ' . Like 'knowledge ' , by itself is just 'stuff' . It can be accumulated in your memory or in an outside medium . But Tao is method. To have a good method, you do not act on all the information available , only what is relevant . Dao is 'inaction' or 'least action ' by using the most focused and essential methods, that require the least input by you , using the most relevant information available . yes, you could use knowledge of mechanics and woodwork and cut down trees and build a ramp and some rollers to get your boat over the sand and into the water ....... but the tide will float out this afternoon, if you care to wait , and not have 'rash action ' . And as time goes on and you learn more about 'the forces' one needs to 'act' less and less .... just 'place yourself in the right position' and you get what you want ( everything is acted upon ) .... 'you're a winner' ! But if you run around doing all sorts of shit ... you might not be . Spoiler Brought to you by 'LaoTzu on a kangaroo ' Edited August 19 by Nungali 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sahaja Posted August 19 There is later writer who said( 1st century BCE) - the ability to perceive things without interference of prior knowledge is called emptiness. In my understanding, Non intention or non governance better reflects what is being transmitted with the term WuWei. Their point is that humans acting on their intentions, desires, preconceived notions, agendas, mental baggage, etc. will sooner or later always screw things up. if one can respond with alert attention alone without intention De will naturally arise (and a whole lot of qi!). However, being in a pure attention mode is a very advanced state that few will ever reach. The good news is that it is not a binary, it’s more of a spectrum or scale. Reducing your intention incrementally in your in practice results in incrementally more qi arising. The practices of song and ting are related to this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cobie Posted August 19 (edited) 5 hours ago, Sahaja said: … the ability to perceive things without interference of prior knowledge … Yes. That’s what line 1 of Ch 48 is about. Quote … is called emptiness … Yes. It’s related to 虛心 in Ch 3. Edited August 19 by Cobie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
