Michael Winn and the whole neo-taoist possee…

Lao Tzu was not a “taoist”. Sakyamuni was not a “buddhist”.
In the Jewel Ornament of Liberation by Gampopa, among other places, it is pointed out that starting out with form meditation is best for most, as starting with formless is very difficult and invites getting just plain spaced out and confused. Even pure Japanese zen types will tend to at least begin with meditating on the hara and on a koan. Naturally the dangers of getting attached to form are pointed out too. Usually one at least begins by watching the breath.

I once read Padmasambhava (one of the godfather’s of the Tibetan Nyingmapa lineage, it’s oldest lineage out of which dzogchen arises) bluntly saying that those who teach that it is not necessary or disadvantageous to develop strong one-pointed concentration by way of taming the mind first off were deluded, because by taming the mind, he said, one invites the automatic freeing/enlightening dynamics of the innate deeper intelligence to take over from the ego (a rather quick summary of a complex topic); in other words one is inviting a deeper alchemical process of transformation to begin.

For example a typical progression is to meditate on an object, then on a visualized object, then on the breath, then on thought, then on awareness and on the phenomenon of the meditative mindfulness one has developed, etc.
From form to formlessness. A refining, distilling process; alchemy. As one teacher of mine of sufi background once said to me sternly, when I was going on to a fellow student about “pure
meditation”: “First the form Simon, then the formlessness”.

I believe from meditation experience that all forms are implicit in the mind stream; shortcuts are possible; furthermore you may access meditation experience from other incarnations; but in practice having a structure is good. Structured meditations and deep study of esoteric theory are also good for having something to do with greater energy and access to non-physically oriented states. Spiritual systems could even be looked at as difficult arts or games one can learn to master. Myself I like that way of looking at them.

Your right about original buddhism being a pure “alchemical method” which later got fishy (or has had it’s complex ups and downs). Buddhism is as complex as Taoism or any other old tradition, and unfortunately it has developed it’s foolish trends here and there, and I actually agree with Michael that a too moralistic naive idea of karma, which originally was taught (and still is by many) as a very subtle philosophical meditation device, is one of them; again, of course, not all “buddhists” teach this moralistic stuff. I have also found that the situation can be one where a monk teacher teaches simplistic stuff due to his cloistered existence, when it comes to hell realms and blah blah, but his meditation and philosophical teachings are brilliant. Lots of grey areas as usual.

Any effective spiritual system can be thought of as “alchemy”, be it western of eastern; that’s why I am drawn to it as an encompassing notion, a notion that allows for efficient digestion of multiple approaches to the same quest.

Best wishes,
Simon