Question for Bagua and a lesson about the life force!

So, I would think it is more effective than one-pointedness to get a direct communication from your vital organ shen to tell you what to do.

This comes down to a problem of unclear language again; I think what you really mean is to observe the self, while I am talking about listening to the self and talking to it. In some ways we are saying the same thing, but when you observe the self, aren’t you observing the emptiness within the self, or is it the sensations, thoughts, etc as they arise and dissolve? Do you actually consider the voice of the Vital organ shen as a valid communication, or is it unimportant because it will dissolve into emptiness anyway?

Where does that clarity of thought arise from? Is it from the self? If it is, then what part of the self, the vital organ shen or the empty part, which is not really the self at all, but the collective mind?

I think that perhaps you are entirely missing my point.(?)

———-
To acknowledge your points:

s> Alchemys still works even when people have minimal time to practice. Having half an hour to focus on the pearl is ideal, but.. >

I acknowledge that it is possible to develop an energetically formful practice that is fairly effective at blending energies to make a sweeter, richer blend, that nourishes and balances the body at a number of levels. Some people get that out of the HT system(s), and that, imo, is the opportunity of the HT system(s). (Not without risks, and not everyone gets it, but – yup – possible.)

s> The strength in movement qigong is that it activates the Jing through movement and intention,.. >

Again, acknowledged that moving practices are an important part of integrating physical and subtle. And it does provide some momentum that can be healthy.
———-

The above approaches I would put %99.99 into the arena of “personal qi gong”, by which I mean that – while it is possible to be personally beneficial – it is very unlikely to develop one’s relation to The Big Nameless, The One Big Thing, Non-Duality… the Tao.

By “doing”, we are engaging parts of ourselves that view, experience, and change (or at least attempt to change) things. I’m talking about dualist experience, here, and that aspect of ourselves runs deep. Formful energetic manipulation practices engage, promote even, our dualistic aspects. This runs way too deep for people to avoid with a little mindfulness while “doing”.

example. The Tibetans make very elaborate mandalas. You’ve probably seen the designs, its like, “Yikes!, I’m supposed to visualize that!“. While there are many dis-similarities, its similar to the HT in that it is a formful internal practice. The thing is, within their cycle of practice – after the creation and employment of the mandala – they acknowledge that the mandala gets totally consumed, dissolved, washed away.. The Big Nameless.

There is the acknowledgement of energies, the structured engagement, the blending, .. and then the drop merges into the Ocean (which we know it was never really seperate from, but we tend to forget).

Its this last part that the HT is sorely lacking, and it is the Fundamental. And my view is that the skillful means that most closely aligns with the HT system of meditations has to do with sustained stabalized concentration on the deep-center, which results in the unification of concentration and Openness.

Your move.

Trunk

There’s an increasing amount to agree upon..

I would agree that the inner smile and what MWinn calls “the neutral space” are the HT version of stillness practice, and that bringing well-blended energy into the deep-center of each tan tien facilitates the development of stable centers – which can increasingly serve as a bridge to individual ~ Tao integration.

And I’d say that MWinn has done a large service by presenting the neutral space as an important concept. And that certainly some of the criticism being leveled applies to the old presentations (though the old books are still in print), and to Chia’s presentation (which is even way busier than Michael’s).

… hmmmm ..

It could be said that the elements are there, but is the emphasis? In my view, all of that has not gone far enough as of yet, by quite a ways. Perhaps its a matter of time. As the neutral space gets really plumbed, things get profoundly simple.

And there is real risk that busy practices occlude that simplicity, rather than promote it. That distinction makes a huge, huge difference in results for students.

Nice talking with you. You’ve been patient, and I appreciate it. I need a break from all this talking, and so will not post further responses in this thread – though I’ll read your reply if you choose to. I read, and considered, your previous reply several times.

kind regards,
Trunk

My fat fingers hit the button to fast:

I think you bring a worthy valuable post, stillness is the basis for almost any energy arts system that I have encountered, but we can debate the issue of stillness as it has been.

My personal expierence has been that these “formulas” are really a process and at some extent a dedication to a way of life. Everyone’s mind-body are different and require what is correct for you as a individual; I believe there is Rooting or “Standing meditation” in the fundamental that is a stillness practice.

We have a group of friends that practice we dedicate time twice a week from 6pm-9pm for our practice we always min. do 20 minutes of basic awareness practice. We used to do it the other way with smiling right out of the gate but most of us WORK and have busy lifes so basic awareness was a great addition for us.