- This topic has 31 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Some refer to the Nei-Yeh as a reference for the alchemical formulas taught here, can you tell me the pages in this book (47-96) that you feel confirm the one cloud formulas and lets discuss this. I hope there will be clear things, not things that take enormous leaps of faith.
From my view page 62 states is a guiding light and exactly what is presented in the Tao Teh Ching.
thanks,
baguaHow soon people forget!
I have a quote or three.
In Cleary’s ‘Vitality Energy Spirit – A Taoist Sourcebook’, at the back, several modern (20th century) Taoists speak a little about their process. It is, encouragingly, still a very eclectic group of viewpoints. But in general there seems to be a concensus that there is a ‘Northern School’ which primarily attunes to emptiness, and a ‘Southern School’ which ‘focuses on openings’. What Michael is teaching here on this site can be called ‘Southern School’ – which is hardly a unified school since no two teachers appear to teach the same. The general tenor of all the remarks one reads in this part of the book is: the two schools are BOTH correct. There is not and can never be an ‘orthodox’ taoism! How could there be if everyone keeps their methods secret?
We can see this from the following quote, by Yuan-hua-tzu:
“The Southern school lays predominant emphasis on mastery of life, while the Northern branch lays predominant emphasis on mastery of essence. The Southern school seeks spirit from the “other”, while the practice of the Northern branch depends on oneself. The effects of the Southern school are rapid, the effects of the Northern branch are slow. In general, although the Southern and Northern schools have their own special emphases, YET WHEN IT COMES TO MASTERY THEY ARE ONE.” [my emph.]
All of the modern taoists in that section of the book claim to have attained the whole tao. Of these, some began with Tai Chi Chuan and then ‘suddenly realized’ that they had only to sit in emptiness. Others began by sitting in emptiness but then took up alchemy. Still others practiced the same approach from beginning to end. The only conclusion one can draw is that there is no conclusion to draw. Everyone must progress in the manner they feel is fit and no-one can claim there is a ‘true taoism’. Everyone must discover what is out there and what works.
Only that well-known ingrained secrecy of the various Taoist lineages in China prevents this from being seen more easily, I feel.
I’ll give a couple more quotes on this subject and in a way I kind of consider the ‘argument’ settled at that point, to the extent that there was ever anything to settle.
Wang Hua-chen:
“In immortalism there is a distinction between sudden and gradual. The sudden method is direct transcendence in a single step [which Michael says is impossible]; the whole process is no more than “keeping to the centre” [exactly what Bagua would say!] and “returning to openness”. The transformations are very few.
In the gradual method, there is stage after stage, so it is imperative to progress gradually, in an orderly manner [exactly what Michael would say!]; it is impossible to approach at a single bound [Right Michael?].”Hsiao T’ien-shih:
“In the practice of the Southern school, some start from energetics, some start from quiet sitting… The experiences of those who study the Southern school are individually different; the transmissions from teacher to teacher are not the same. The Northern branch’s practice of clarity and calm may be less powerful, and its results may come slower, but if it is continued and built up little by little, there is no doubt that it can also result in attainment of the Way… However, it may be hard for any but those of the highest faculties to enter into it … but when the power of the practice is realized, it certainly has the marvelous function of “myriad openings opening at once”…. [right Bagua?]
Among Taoist meditations there are those that involve focusing on openings, and there are those that do not focus on openings. There are those that do not focus on openings but do focus on emptiness, and there are those that do not focus either on openings or on emptiness. Focusing on openings is easy to get into, but final realization is hard. Not focusing on openings is hard to get into but final realization is easy.”… all of which goes to show I think that there is no right way, no argument, no truth and no answer apart from whatever works for the individual.
That’s my thoughts on this one! NN
_________________________________________________________________________
the above is a quote from a post I made on this site 14 months ago. j
You may want to study Dragon Gate, Complete Realty school, when there founder died it split into North and Southern Schools.
Clary’s tradition of the golden flower is very good, read the back of it.
I prefer to just stay on the Nei Yeh and not mix other books, teachings.
bagua
I am having following up on someone els’s reference to this book, instead of letting these references go I decided to have a discussion on it, OK?
Maybe you can let us finish and start some other discussion if you prefer.
Thanks for the research! It is interesting to note, though that the (northern) Quanzhen school of Daoism (complete reality) was very influencd by buddhism, hence the focus on “emptiness”.
The “five inner gods” school of alchemical daoism of one cloud (yi yun) comes from the mountain hermit tradition. There are undoubtedly similarities, as some of the prctices that were taught by prominent Quanzhen practitioners that I experienced in China were similar to those I already learned form Michael. Who influenced who is hard to tell.
… to me is not as important as the single simple acknowledgement: AS FAR AS MASTERY IS CONCERNED BOTH SCHOOLS ARE ONE. I am sure you are right there was that Buddhist influence, but I feel that since (as you say) it’s hard to say who influenced whom, even the most minute dissection of nei-yeh is unlikely to elucidate who is ‘true’ or ‘right’ or ‘real traditional taoism’ etc.
In a time when unity is called for I really prefer to look at what unites practices rather than at what divides them… who is the ‘pure truth’ better than the rest? I can’t say I care, everyone has something this is my only real point. This argument has been dividing this board ever since I first logged on. Why I wonder?
Neither Bagua nor indeed Buddha himself would really argue with:
“It is necessary that you develop a base within yourself – a base that is not affected by your changing surface emotions or your changing mental states. This base must become a point of contact for your real personality, the essence of the divine which is within you and within everyone else. From this base you can reach out to know your emotions or to quiet your mind. Once established it gradually becomes a place of stability, allowing you to develop an internal awareness that cannot be disturbed by influences from any external source.”
[Mickaharic, “A Century of Spells”]
… but it was said by a western witch. Even Buddha says, don’t believe something because it’s written down, because everyone says it, etc.
I was a little disingenuous in quoting myself above – originally it was not Bagua I wrote to but a trimuvirate then consisting of Max, Bagua, and Fajin. I wonder what Max would make now of the anti-alchemical arguments he so passionately espoused a mere year ago?
I think that if one is happy in one’s own practice, then as long as someone else’s aren’t in some egregious way completely wrong and unacceptable (sacrificing virgins or something! ^_^) it seems easier just to say, well at least brother we are both going our way and finding what we need, even if we are finding it differently… it just seems more… sensible!
j
By the way, I didn’t say that the Nei Yeh is a “Source of Alchemical Methods”, let alone “THE SOURCE”, merely that it supports the transformation of jing-qi-shen through “methods” such as qigong and inner focus
A surface reading of the english text on page 62 may easily confirm your view that there is nothing more than to “hold on to the one”, an important foundational practice in all daoist schools (also known as the inner smile):
“Those who can transform even a single thing, call them numinous,
Those who can alter even a single situation, call them wise
But to transform without expending vital energy; to alter without expending wisdom
Only exemplary persons who hold fst to the one are able to do this
Hold fast to the one, do not lose it
And you will be able to master the myriad things
Exemplary persons act upon things
and are not acted upon by them
because they grasp the guiding principle of the one.” p.62lets not forget that the author translated several terms using english words that have a different connotation than what we practicing alchemists attribute to them:
“Those who can transform even a single thing, call them shen, (virtue of the heart)
Those who can alter even a single situation, call them zhi (virtue of the kidneys)
But to transform without expending Qi; to alter without expending wisdom
Only exemplary persons who hold fast to the one are able to do this
Hold fast to the one, do not lose it
And you will be able to master the myriad things
Exemplary persons act upon things
and are not acted upon by them
because they grasp the guiding principle of the one.” p.62I see this verse not necessarily as a description of a method but a discourse on the benefit of cultivating neutral force. This verse is preceded by verse number 8 on page 60:
“If you can be aligned and be tranquil,
Only then can you be stable.
With a stable heart at your core,
With the eyes and ears acute and clear,
And with the four limbs firm and fixed,
You can thereby make a lodging place for the vital jing.
The vital Jing: it is the essence of the vital Qi.
When the vital Qi is guided, it is generated,
(But when it is generated, there is thought
when there is thought, there is knowledge,
But when there is knowledge, Then you must stop.
Whenever the body-mind has excessive knowledge,
You lose your vitality.)”Here are some verses with a rather alchemical flavor, though not necessarily “do-it-yourself” instructions:
11
“When you body is not aligned,
the inner virtue will not come.
When you are not tranquil,
your heart-mind will not be well ordered.
Align your body, assist the inner virtue,
Then it will gradually come on its own.”12
“The shen, no one knows its limit;
it intuitively knows the myriad things.
Hold it within you, do not let it waver.
To not disrupt your senses (inner senses?) with external things,
to not disrupt your heart-mind with your senses;
this is called grasping it within you.”17
“For all this Way,
you must coil, you must contract,
you must uncoil, you must expand,
you must be firm, you must be regular,
Hold fast to this excellence, do not let go of it.
Chase away the excessive; abandon the trivial.
And when you reach its ultimate limit
you will return to the way and its inner virtue (Te).”19
“By concentrating your qi and shen,
The myriad things will be contained within you.
Can you concentrate? Can you unite with them?
Can you not resort to divining by tortoise or milfoil
Yet know bad and good fortune?
Can you stop? Can you cease?
Can you not seek it in others,
Yet attain it within yourself?
You think and think about it
and think still further about it,
you think, yet still cannot penetrate it.
While the shen will penetrate it,
It is not due to the power of the shen
But to the utmost refinement of your Jing Qi.
When the four limbs are aligned
and the blood and vital Qi are relaxed,
unify your awareness, concentrate your heart-mind,
then your eyes and ears will not be overstimulated.
And even the far-off will seem close at hand.”Complete Realty School was founded by Wang, one of his goals was to unite Taoism, Buddhism and Confucism, this was a primarly purpose. He saw how they were the same, took one to the same place. He was not into sexual practices.
Interior Gods appears to be created or promoted by San Qing tradition and Lady Wei, but really Tong.
One Cloud, well nobody here has met him, and do you think he wrote those descriptions in the books or on this website?
bagua
I agree that practice should be satisfactory enough to not have to argue that any particular one “is the best”. I appreciate your movement towards unification. I do think it is important though that all practices are not the same. I am merely backing up the alchemical viewpoint, since if I simply agreed with Bagua, then my own practice would no longer be valid.
There are also some other subtle dynamics going on here that I will try to elucidate:
1. Whenever we present an alchemical viewpoint, there is an implied rejection of it as unnecessary by saying “all you need is to hold on to the one”, that I think is definitely important but there is more to it than that. This implies dissolution of the self, giving up of free will. I am responding to my perceived validity of the alchemical viewpoint that I experience through practice.
2. The position on whether the individuated self dissolves into the one or achieves a symbiosis with it and maintains its own free will makes certain practices different than others.
3. Spiritual terms are not being used clearly and blanket generalizations are used as a means of glossing over points in a discussion rather than processing them. Spirituality as a “science”, or something that can be cultivated with particular results (albeit they are different for different people), requires the use of some kind of consistent terminology; can you imagine a community having a discussion about gardening with no words for winter or summer?
4. I feel that the idea that the jing shen can scatter after death is a sore point in Baguas cosmology that he doesn’t like, and wants to invalidate by saying that “we are already eternal”, which is in effect trying to dissolve them now, or at least devalue their contribution to his present being by observing them but not acknowledging their value as much as the “original self”. It is of course possible to value both, and allow both to co-exist. The fact that they do ultimately arise from the original self is true, but they are very far removed (“separated”) and appear to be in opposition to it, so honouring their difference, and harmonizing and cultivating both is important in my view. In a nutshell:
“we come from the original self, and have never left it, but are vibrationally far removed and appear to be separated out in the physical plane. By saying we are only the original self is insulting to the physical self that sustains us here. Either we can dissolve back into the original self or try and bring it here by active harmonization, creating a third resonance, that of physical essence infused with the original self.”
unity is important, but we can see the results of such polarized viewpoints (spirit only) in the middle east. It is easier to just let things go their course rather than to value both sides AND to influence them towards unity.
Here is where you and I have problems, the organs were not assaigned “Virtues” until the Song Dynasty, a confucian influence, old Taoist do not beleive in this, so to imply the Nei Yeh is talking about that is just historically incorrect.
It is possible that some streams of Shangqing Daoism are similar to the Five Interior Gods School with their emphasis on personal meditation, or maybe it was a different school, or maybe both schools arose from another source. Hard to say at this point.
True that no one has here has met One Cloud, but if what Mantak was teaching at the beginning of his career was any indication of what One Cloud taught then the energetic principles michael teaches seem to match.
I am merely translating the Chinese characters in the Chinese text on the right side of the page: harold roth says “inner power”, but the term is the same one used in the title of the Dao De Jing, “De”, or virtue, or morality according to most chinese-english dictionaries.
… let’s see if I can manage it.
A lesson taught to me by one of my teachers was in rhetoric and concerned the fact that if two views oppose, a third view is the way to unite them – one that stands between. No-one here will be unfamiliar with this concept I’m sure! This is what I will try to offer. Not easy considering. 🙂 I will have to be as honest as I can.
I think you summed up your own viewpoint very well Ocean, when you said:
>>Either we can dissolve back into the original self or try and bring it here by active harmonization, creating a third resonance, that of physical essence infused with the original self.”<>if I simply agreed with Bagua, then my own practice would no longer be valid.<<
…?
Why can there not be two equally valid goals that different people for their own reasons are chasing right now and perhaps using the methods appropriate to those goals for them?
I could answer more of your points but I will just wait for a reaction to this so far. So how's that?
j
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.