“Watching the Breath” as Alchemical Practice

Plato, happy to entertain your serious questions.

>1.If an adept can get ATTACHED to physical breathing, can she not get attached to the process of Fusion, or Kan and Li? If so, how should she release said attachment and where will that leave her once she is successful with the method of de-attaching?

Absolutely, any spiritual technique can create attachment, and thus should be approached as a processual tool that is used and then put down once its purpose is finished, and one moves deeper into the process.

Fusion and the kan and li’s methods produce less physical attachment than simple breathing methods because they are focused on a deeper level of self-process that cultivates more neutral force (which for simiplicity we will define as yuan chi at different levels of manifestation).

Alchemical methods are designed to gradually transfer more superficial attachments/fixities in the xin to a deeper soul level, so that one can become aware of soul patterns that are behind the “desires” of the mind expressed as thoughts or emotions.

The idea behind a graduated alchemical training is that integrating the ordinary mind/xin and the primordial mind is a vast, never-ending process. One can realistically only hope to shift to cosmic consciousness in stages, just like children grow up gradually and incorporate different life experiences into a cumulative wisdom self.

Structured education of any kind is designed to accelerate such a process, but structure/method doesn’t have to undermine the underlying spontaneous nature of learning itself.

I respect the Buddhist focus on not getting stuck anywhere along the process, but think a “positive” approach works better and supports a human’s right to Selfhood. I think metaphysical focus on a state such as “emptiness” can cause the self to gloss over the many levels of Self that exist between xin and original nature, in the west called soul and oversoul.

In the buddhist system these soul levels are generally, as far as I can tell,
lumped together under the heading “karma”. I think the Buddhist focus on emotions or desires surfacing at the heart-mind/personality level are misplaced attempts to change the karmic pattern, which is best dealt with by raising one’s frequency and focus to that level, and learning to balance Self at those levels.

>2.While the state of “inner witnessing” is much closer to the Tao then the state of passive tranquility, is it closer to the Tao then is a common person’s state of awareness?

The question implies that “Tao” is a certain knowable state of mind, albeit cosmic mind. Tao is not a state to be achieved, in my view, but a never ending process of experience by a self that is inherently immortal.

The definition I accept of Tao is “Way-Making” (proposed by Ames and Hall, two classical chinese scholars, authors of Yuan Dao: Tracing Dao to its Source). Every level of self is involved in some kind of way-making, from lesser to greater to primordial self. There is no fixed or permanent Way to be achieved.

Every level of self is equally close to their own process. There is a deep usually unconscious desire to integrate different levels of self, described in the Tao te ching as “Returning is the Nature of the Tao” (ch. 40, as I recal). Ames and Hall point out that this Returning is evidence of the infinitely cyclical, processual nature of Way-Making, that it is NOT evidence for returning to a fixed state, as it is commonly mis-interpreted assumed by readers who hold a fixed end in their own mind/belief system.

As I have pointed out, these differences in beliefs between”Emptiness” vs. “Immortality” between people following different paths (Buddhism, Taoism, however those might be defined) are unimportant at the level of mass worship or beginning methods of practice. Most people ignore the end point of a religion, it is too far away, they just want something that works for them, a community they feel comfortable with.

The differences in the paths emerge only in the higher level of cultivation training, which is what my comments are directed to here.

Hope this clarifies my views. I don’t want anyone to feel I am “attacking” their beliefs, or right to hold them,
just feel strongly about distinguishing the subtle effects of intention on results experienced by different practices.

peace,
michael

ps. Fajin – I learned the wudang orbit from a white guy raised in Hong Kong, whose “nanny” was a Taoist monk from Wudang, forced out by cultural revolution. He was also taught to absorb lightning strikes – at the age of 9!

And don’t let my strong positions scare you away – would you want to study with someone who lacked the conviction of their own teachings? 😉

Thanks for comments, Max. I intuit from your comments that your level of practice has led you beyond the Five Denials, and allows you to accept the reality of selfhood in the cosmic process. Congrads.

But why make it hard for people to grasp this (if my assumption about you is true)?

Do Buddhists publicly embrace Selfhood?

No.

Would it benefit struggling human selves if they did?

I believe so.

I am not claiming that any one path has an exclusive on developing self-hood as part of the “what is”.

As I have pointed out, many practitioners ignore the dogma of their religion and just take from it what they want.

That certainly applies to Taoist practitioners of qigong and inner alchemy as well.

I am just making people aware of the anachronistic language traps that can influence one’s practice and thus one’s experience and actions.

You are of course saying that all language is limited and must be transcended. I agree – but why use misleading language if you can avoid it?

My experience is that the more clearly aligned that our intention, our language, and our spiritual practice is, the more effective the collective process of change becomes.

Dismissing language as unimportant would be another denial of most human’s functional reality.

m