- This topic has 59 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“To me personally, clearing your heart and mind from desires and attachments is a foundation for successful spiritual path. If you don’t do that first and start Alchemy with all your personal ‘garbage’ in the pot, you will get results but, because your mind is not pure enough, you will also get trapped by your experiences …”(max)
Max, I think this exemplifies the chan approach that you support, as being a “state” oriented approach rather than a “process”. It is basically saying that you have to achieve a state of semi-perfection before you can cultivate.
The difference with this in how I view alchemy is that one uses the alchemical refining process to purify the desires and pure virtue qualities. You can start wherever you are and take the cultivation as far as you want depending on how much you practice and what your intent is, how strong your will is to be in the process of completion of your spiritual and physical destiny.
If your view is that alchemy is an intellectual visualization, then you have not taken the time to experience the reults to know what it can be. If you think that someone who has done star alchemy should be in a state of perfection, then you are not viewing alchemy as a process but as a frozen state oriented achievement.
Have you let go of all attachments to desires in your heart and mind? I think if you have achieved this, then according to your practices, you should already be a bodhisattva. In your view, what do you do to cultivate after you have let go of all attachments to desires, what comes after?
>>In your view, what do you do to cultivate after you have let go of all attachments to desires, what comes after?<<
*Good question. Many paths look at the objective as an end goal. What is the end really? To know this is to know what was the beginning. If one knows the beginning, he has an idea of the end. And perhaps more importantly, what is in between the end and beginning.
Interesting advice. Spiritual science is highly subjective, and each person experiences it differently depending on their initial inheritance from heaven and earth, the amount they practice, the strength of their will, etc.
I have been enjoying the process of my daily practice as it sounds like you have also.What you say about process and going deeper along the path sounds similar to what I was also expressing.
The achievement of the still mind (heart-body-mind), and the relation of the composite self to worldy physical plane needs and desires is an ongoing process, I agree. The “still mind”, or the deep inner experience of a permanent part of self that is embodying neutrality, that is balancing and harmonizing, that the physical self is birthed from and returns to in each moment, is a result of alchemical practice. It could also be the result of your practice methods, I don’t know because I have not used the methods you use, and each person experiences things differently anyway. There is a possibility we are talking about the same thing using different terms, with spiritual science each person has their own experience, so all we can really do is speculate on whether we are achieving the same thing. The only way to really tell may be to meditate in the same physical location and experience what the others energy body is communicating, and even then it still depends on the receiver how the message is interpreted. In the mean time, discussion is still a good way to share experiences.
Your last statement about experiencing the flow of the dao “as-is”, seems to be a difference in approach. Whereas the chan practitioner would keep to the still point and allow the flow to take its course, the alchemist would be experiencing the dynamic balancing resulting from the ongoing meditative process of the copulation of yin and yang without necessarily having to be “doing” the practice at the time, therefore doing without effort but still getting done. The difference appears to be in the intention of the practitioner of the buddhist methods passively “allowing” all to happen while maintaining the “empty” space, as opposed to the alchemist “allowing” events to be actively balanced and harmonized through the intention of maintaining the copulation of heaven and earth.
To sum up, the alchemist recognizes yin and yang as an integral part of yuan with equal importance and validity, while the chan practitioner appears to recognize only the yuan as being valid.
The Chan practitioner appears to see yin and yang as being “impermanent”, and therefore not valid or without real existence. The alchemist recognizes impermanence yet maintains that the impermanence of yin and yang as necessary and integral to yuan.
The alchemist therefore accepts the impermanent physicality, and cultivates the immortal presence of yuan qi into the impermanent physical process, while the Chan practitioner cultivates only the yuan qi without integrating it into the physical because of the viewpoint that it will drop away because of its impermanence.
Thoughts?
SO
hi SO:
To sum up, the alchemist recognizes yin and yang as an integral part of yuan with equal importance and validity, while the chan practitioner appears to recognize only the yuan as being valid.
************************************
I dont think so. We see the Sun and Moon flow in their yin-yang patterns, we know this and know they flow in endless cycles of yin-yang, we see it as it is, not wishing and trying to change it. Chan sees both yin-yang and yuan as existing at once, creator and creation are one.The Chan practitioner appears to see yin and yang as being “impermanent”, and therefore not valid or without real existence.
*****************
Nope. We it as in change, no more and no less.The alchemist recognizes impermanence yet maintains that the impermanence of yin and yang as necessary and integral to yuan.
**************************************
We dont split them up, we see them as a whole.The alchemist therefore accepts the impermanent physicality, and cultivates the immortal presence of yuan qi into the impermanent physical process, while the Chan practitioner cultivates only the yuan qi without integrating it into the physical because of the viewpoint that it will drop away because of its impermanence.
***************************
My feedback above requires no comment here.bagua
Yin and yang appear in the body as the kidney water-heart fire relationship. According to chinese medicine, as a person grows older, yin and yang separate in the body.
The alchemist actively reverses these forces in a cooking process to cultivate a neutral space through intention.
Does a chan practitioner use intention to:
1) observe and allow them to separate and go their own way,
2) does the chan focus on the lower dan tien cause the water and fire to unite,
3) observe both as being present but empty through their impermanence, or
4) all of the above
5) not use intentionHi So
Yin and yang appear in the body as the kidney water-heart fire relationship. According to chinese medicine, as a person grows older, yin and yang separate in the body.
*********************************
I dont think this is an accurate statement. Yin-Yang potency decrease with age, we become more deficient with age. The older saying, youth is wasted on the young. Yin-Yang does not seperate as we are alive, Yin-Yang do not separate, their functioning changes.The alchemist actively reverses these forces in a cooking process to cultivate a neutral space through intention.
*************************************
The cooking process is a natural process, chapter one of any major chinese medical text explains this, the cooking is just Jing being cooked by Kidney Yang or Ming Men, alchemists try to enhance this process. The steam does not create a natural space, its just QI and also allows one to exeperience they are not totally their physical body. If one has not become spiritualy mature, no amount of steaming will cause spiritual growth.Does a chan practitioner use intention to:
1) observe and allow them to separate and go their own way,
2) does the chan focus on the lower dan tien cause the water and fire to unite,
3) observe both as being present but empty through their impermanence, or
4) all of the above
5) not use intention
******************************************************
You have a model you use and you want all to be compared to your model.I would say, when you meditate and do your alchemy, there is a time you stop any “visualizations” and you let go and just be, this is chan.
Point 1: YES
Point 2: this is a natural process in the body
Point 3: Chan does not seek to define everything, to analyze everthing like a mechanic. Yes one realizes what you describe.
There is an experience of who one is, then the intellect will be able follow this experience and explain it, but no words can fully explain the eternal nature of life, so direct experience is the key. reading formulas does not give the experience, so we would agree on this.
There is intention, but not as rigidly defined as you like to use. There is intention to be in the moment and to expereince whatever it (nature) brings, there is intention to sit and practice, there is intention to bring this awareness into daily life, there is intention to keep comming back to this moment when out conditioning takes us elsewhere, THIS IS SHAPING, as same like to say.
bagua
>>”You have a model you use and you want all to be compared to your model”
I think you are doing the same.
>>”Point 2: this is a natural process in the body” (mixing of yin and yang)
The difference is that the chan practitioner allows whatever will happen to happen while an alchemist will actively accelerate the process.
>>”reading formulas does not give the experience, so we would agree on this”
Only practice of the formulas gives experience.
>>”There is intention to be in the moment and to expereince whatever it (nature) brings”
The difference here is between using intention to passively experience, and using intention to actively accelerate, balance and harmonize.
Good morning people,
Below is a post from Emelgee from sometime in April that came in the midst of what I like to call “an argument” between folks here. I will go back to my original thought from that conversation that there is a point at which a talk and a sharing between us gets overinvolved and meanings get obscured and people try to clear up what they mean and then deeper meaning REALLY gets obscured and then, in my viewpoint, Being, the most important thing of all, becomes totally forsaken in the quest for meaning.
As we all know and keep repeating to ourselves- Too much talk spoils the rice.
The flavor of conversation sometimes changes from fun and sharing to finding what’s right and wrong through “clarifying” and the vibe starts to sour. I think more smiling and less speaking is better.
Peace, AlexanderEmelgee:
“I read something somewhere that those things we point out in other people as being “unattractive” traits, are simply traits we ourselves possess. Sort of takes me back to that childhood retort of “It takes one to know one!!” (I am thinking maybe Eckhart Tolle…)
I think all of the points raised have some merit. I think the exchange of ideas is good but that always balance should be kept as it is very easy to be stuck in discussing the ideas rather than implementing them and making them real.
From a personal perspective, I don’t post too often but that is only because by the time I get back from work and do the things I need to do to ensure my house is tidy and I am fed, I don’t really want to expend too much time and energy posting. Sometimes I might think “Wow! These people spend a lot of time on line posting” but then I realise that I don’t know your life, so who am I to say what is a reasonable time frame or not.
I will only speak from my personal experience and that is that in a lot of ways I find these discussions a bit difficult to follow. Sometimes I feel a bit “stupid” when I read them because I don’t get it…but I get over it! Maybe in time these things will make better sense to me. Maybe I know exactly what you are talking about but I just use different terms…
Who knows? <– probably none of us!
Keep on truckin'.
Sing o:
>>”You have a model you use and you want all to be compared to your model”
I think you are doing the same.
*************************
One major difference bewteen us is I beleive there are many ways or methods to achieve “immortality”, I beleive the taoist alchemical method has the possibility to do it, I also believe Chan does and others do too, it appears you do not. So I am not limited to one framework, where you are, assuming Im right about your view.>>”Point 2: this is a natural process in the body” (mixing of yin and yang)
The difference is that the chan practitioner allows whatever will happen to happen while an alchemist will actively accelerate the process.
********************************
IF YOU CAN allow it to occur, you just accelerated it!!!!! I hope you can see that.and who are you comparing this “acceleration” you mention, how do you know it is going faster than other methods?
>>”reading formulas does not give the experience, so we would agree on this”
Only practice of the formulas gives experience.
>>”There is intention to be in the moment and to expereince whatever it (nature) brings”
The difference here is between using intention to passively experience, and using intention to actively accelerate, balance and harmonize.
*******************************
Passive is relative, you are viewing intention on specfic processes, Chan has much intention, it takes lots of intention to get to where there is not intention.but basically, you believe you are incomplete or lacking something and need to create something new; I believe we are complete but we have ego, conditioning, etc blocking our ability to experience or eternal nature, the Chan and in my view Alchemy, is really about dealing with these blocks, when they are seein for what they are we exeperience our Shen nature, this is Heaven in Earth and is here now, and is here always.
bagua
——————————————————————————–
Bagua,
I want to clear up what shaping is. You have the wrong idea about shaping, Chan does not shape. Let me explain by starting off with a quote by Shou-Yu Liang in the Tantric Buddhism section of the book, Qigong Empowerment:
“There are many visualization methods which cover a very broad area. Visualization techniques are not visualizing for the sake of visualizaing. Visualization is used to reach a state of Void in thought, to enter a meditative state, and attain the union of the human and the cosmos. When visualizing, one condenses one’s thoughts, by concentrating on one visualization to eliminate all other thoughts.”
Tantric Buddhism, like Daoism, uses visualizations to reach Xu, the union of human and cosmos. They are not empty visualzations and do have an effect. Visualizations imply shaping, Chan does not. Eg. When you practice Dumo, you visualize a character at the navel center, red in colour, and flickering like a stove. Don’t tell me this is empty because it has an effect on the body.
Tibetan Buddhists are able to sleep in snow because they produce internal heat. The same goes when you use pearls, virgin children, animals, water, etc. Each is a shape and has an effect on the body. Chan does not have these shapes and does not produce a certain, DESIRED, SPECIFIC, effect.
I agree that the conversion of jing-qi-shen-xu/wu happens naturally and by simply observing, you accelerate that translation. But it does not go how you want it to go because there are no wants, because there is no self. Visualizations allow you to do what you want, that is why I say it gives you free will – there is self. When you observe ONLY, you are like the sun or moon watching down on everything, just part of the collective. That is not what you are designed for. You say we are complete. So why not use that aspect of ourselves, the ego-self. Chan does not take advantage of that, it wants to eliminate the ego-self. There is no free will in that.
Lately, I have been practicing some emptiness methods like following my breath and listening to sounds, etc. I think they are great, but alone, there is no free will. Let’s look at the origin of Chan and Buddhism althogether – Hinduism.
In Ashtanga Yoga’s 8 Fold Path, samadhi is there. This is Chan. But Yoga includes other things too. The main support for it is about raising the Kundalini to attain super-conconsiousness. As you go through the chakras you open altered states of concsiousness. Yoga uses samadhi, pranayama, asanas, etc. to meet this goal. Buddha took this from Hinduism and uses samadhi only as a goal for enlightenment. That’s not the original intent in Yoga, it is a science.
My point is that all paths are built on somekind of knowledge. Knowing just a simple technqiue like following the breath does not bring immortality. Why would Daoists, Yogis, Tantric practitioners, Egyptian, etc. have all this knowledge if all they needed was just follow the breath and they would bring balance. Don’t you think there is something more to it?
I think it’s great to add emptiness meditations because doing them daily, they maintain neutrality throughout. But if we have the knowledge to become neutral, why not use that? Why not do it ourselves instead of just observing? What’s wrong with that?
Hopefully something I am saying kicks in, and you get my message.
Regards,
FajinWe harmonize ourselves, the microcosmos, ie. the person who is using the paddle so he flows with the river in harmony. We go internal to external. The river is the macrocosmos, we don’t change it, but ourselves.
Then either you are using a bad method or not using the method properly. Daoists do not change the Dao, the river. We change ourselves. That is why it is a bad example. We don’t use methods to change the flow in the river. We use methods to change ourselves, why do you not get that?
>>You separated Chan and Daoism clearly even though many Daoist schools and methods are Chan, and a lot of Zen schools employ Daoist techniques and principles.<<
*Is taking the pearl out of the body Daoist? It is not. The Daoist methods attempt to follow the path of least resistance and go internal to external, ie. they penetrate deeper within. Just because Daoists have adopted methods from the Zen school, it does not automatically change those methods to mean that they are Daoist, they are originally Zen methods. What Michael is attempting to do, is to have a path that follows penetrates the deepest and is following least resistance. If One Cloud taught emptiness, Chia omitted them because he thought they were not in accordance with the Dao.
Counting the breath is a method. Following the breath is a method. Guan Yin’s method is a method. We all want to attain union of Dao and man and we use some kind of method to achieve that goal. If you read my quote by Shou-Yu Liang, he says that Tantric Buddhists use visualization methods to attain union of man and Dao. We do alchemical work on ourselves in order to attain union of ourselves with Dao. We do not do alchemical work on the Dao (the river).
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.