- This topic has 34 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Many of the arguments between a taoist and a buddhist point of view supposedly turn on differing views of ‘the final completion’, something like:
TAOISTS: Nothing ever stops moving, the unity is perfectly harmonized movement but should not be thought of as ending
BUDDHISTS: Unity is the fixed thing beyond movement
My question: What is the actual difference in fact between these two points of view?
It is clear that in unity all opposites cease to be relevant and are resolved. Therefore in the unity there cannot possibly, in my view, be any difference between moving and not moving; all things are present and therefore no difference can be discernable.
If it is ‘still moving’ what is moving in reference to?
If it is ‘fixed’ what is fixed in reference to?
The taoists say it is still moving internally, but since it contains all moments of time at once (if you don’t think so, which moments of time are not included? ^_^) there cannot possibly be a sense of time flowing, nor can there be ‘fixity’ because all possible free will choices are included (if you don’t think so, which choices are not included? ^_^)
I can’t see any argument between the two points of view except those arising from different training systems, languagings, and marketing systems – sorry religions I mean. j
This is an interesting question that I think
Michael would do a good job of answering.Nonetheless, I’ll take a stab!
I would say that Taoists don’t really believe
in a “final completion of unity” in the strictest
sense of the phrase.Unity implies everything is the same.
Final completion sort of implies no further change occurs.Thus a final completion of unity would mean that
everything is completely uniform and static for all
time.I don’t think that Taoists believe that.
I think that what is meant from the Taoist POV is
that eventually everything would gravitate toward
some kind of “perfect equilibrium”, in the sense
that opposites continue to occur, but they are in
perfect balance; moreover, change continues to
occur, but the perfect balance is maintained–sort of
like a rod that is spinning on a lathe that has been
honed down enough so that it doesn’t wobble anymore.
As one part diminishes, another part strengthens in
perfect compensation, and like a spinning wheel
all parts change simultaneously and fluidly so
that a perfect balance is continually maintained.Philosophically, what is meant by “motion” and what is
meant by “time”?Both of these are constructs of the mind; really, they
are imprecise notions that are meant to convey the
idea of change. Thus the definition of motion is change.
The definition of time is change.I don’t believe Taoists think that change would ever stop; at
best, something like the above picture of the perfectly
spinning wheel. All parts are changing simultaneously
in perfect balance. From this perspective, the “motion paradox”
and “time paradox” are solved. When you translate into
the language of “change”, you see that it is both possible
for all times to exist simultaneously AND for time to “flow”–namely
it flows at each and every time!Best,
Steven>>Unity implies everything is the same.<>Final completion sort of implies no further change occurs.<>Thus a final completion of unity would mean that
everything is completely uniform and static for all
time.<>I think that what is meant from the Taoist POV is
that eventually everything would gravitate toward
some kind of “perfect equilibrium”<>I don’t believe Taoists think that change would ever stop<>you see that it is both possible
for all times to exist simultaneously AND for time to “flow”–namely
it flows at each and every time!<<Agreed! But the simple fact is that the Buddhists would also agree. They would say: since it is all simultaneous and present at once, it cannot be flowing, since flowing implies it is going somewhere else, when in fact there is nowhere else to go.
Next! j
I fully understand the taoist idea of unity as ‘continuous becoming’; what I’m saying is this does not in the least contradict the ideas of Bagua or of Buddhists that ‘it is already there you just have to realize it’.
If it is continuous becoming it’s *infinite* continuous becoming, because *all* becomings are occurring within it. That includes all the becoming that it is possible to have, all the becomingss anyone or anything is aware of right this second and for all the other seconds! So if so, you can indeed say the unity ‘already exists’. All things are in it all the time so when could it not exist?
And if it does ‘already exist’ that means that indeed you ‘just have to realize it’, this does not mean at all that it loses any of its ‘continuous simultaneous becoming’, so I do not understand how the views of ‘continuous becoming’ and ‘already exists complete’ are in conflict.
One person with direct experience of this is Rawn Clark. He is a magician so he is not part of the debate on his board. He is describing, I must emphasize, the experience at the end of the FIRST step of initiation – after this there is alot more for anyone to do, but the experience of being able to merge with unity whenever desired is a magical goal at the start – of course it may take a long time, decades or lifetimes etc – but it is not considered a ‘final goal’.
All I want to point out for those who stagger to the end of this quote (I’m sorry for its length but I hope it’s interesting) is that his description of the Unity itself does not belie any other description I’ve heard on here, or elsewhere, and indeed confirms them all. It does not seem to me that there is any difference between ‘the unities’ experienced by all the paths since there can by definition only be one unity! They word it differently this is what I believe, I have not heard anyone convincingly say otherwise.
Rawn’s notes for the reader of Step 10 of Bardon’s ‘Initiation’:
———————————————————————-
>>I must caution you at this point that due to the finite nature of words, it is impossible for me to accurately describe either the Unity or the experience of merging with the Unity. Non-sequential experiences simply don’t fit into such sequentialized things as words! Consequently, each thing I say in this regard will be only partially true and will convey things in a sequential manner that belies the essential non-sequentialized reality of the Unity.
But even in saying this I have implied things that are inaccurate. Case in point is when I say that the Unity is non-sequential. The deeper mystery is that the Unity encompasses both the sequential and the non-sequential realms, simultaneously. When I say it is non-sequential, I am referring more to how the Unity appears to our sequentialized human consciousness and not to its essential nature. Often, how we attempt to describe the indescribable involves pointing more to the differences between these things and “normal” things, than it does to their similarities. The greatest problem with this is that pointing out only differences seems to limit our understanding of the essential Unity of Being. In the hopes of avoiding that obfuscation, I will try to point out as many similarities as I can in what follows.
The first thing I should say in terms of describing the merging with the Unity, pertains to the sense of self that the magician experiences. The self-awareness of the Unity is often described as an “I am” state, but what is often overlooked is the fact that this deific sense of self-identity is of the same quality as that experienced by a normal human being. The only difference is in quantity as the Unity encompasses every thing that has existence and the individual human encompasses only a minute portion of that infinite expanse. It is, in fact, this continuum of alikeness that the magician follows in the ascent or expansion of the quantity of consciousness. In simplistic terms, the magician stands firmly rooted in the quality of self-awareness and expands the quantity of that awareness until it encompasses the Unity of All Being.
The implications of this in practice are that the magician, once merged with the Unity, experiences the entire universe as if it were in fact a part of their own self. There is no part of the infinite universe of which the Unity is not aware.
This brings us to the four attributes of deity, which I think will serve as a good foundation for further describing the ramifications of merging with the Unity. Please note that the four attributes listed in Step Ten vary slightly from those listed in Step Nine. It is the Step Ten list that I will concern myself with here, though it pays to compare the two on your own.
The four attributes are —
1) Omnipotence (All powerfulness): This is associated with the Element Fire. The sort of omnipotence experienced by the Unity, and by one merged with the Unity, is not akin to the popular conceptualization of a god “up there” who points down at us mere mortals and, poof!, things change according to “his” will. The Unity’s omnipotence works from the inside-out of EVERY thing, all at once. There is no splitting of consciousness at the level of the Unity proper — the splitting of consciousness is only a manifestation of the Unity.
Within the Unity, there is also no willing akin to human willing. Instead, the Unity exists all at once, as a unified whole, and what we think of as divine will is merely the Unity being what it naturally is. When initiates speak about merging with the divine will and say things like “let Thy will be my will”, an incorrect impression is given that the individual will is somehow transplanted by a higher will. This is not the case. The individual will is transformed by the experience of merging, not replaced. Again, an initiate follows the continuum of similarity as they rise to the divine. The thread of similarity here has to do with the fact that the human will is an aspect or manifestation of the divine will. And once again, the difference is a matter of quantity not of quality.
The omnipotence of the lesser gods is more limited that of the Unity. Because they exist below the Abyss, they are finite, sequentialized creatures. Thus they are of limited, specific use to the magician. For example, in modern ceremonial magic, one must carefully choose the appropriate “god form” for the task at hand. But if one can merge with the Unity, then nothing is impossible.
But having said that, I should note that the magician capable of merging with the Unity will not be willing petty things nor things that violate the universal lawfulness. You must keep in mind that this transformation touches the individual adept at EVERY level of his or her being.
2) Omniscience (All knowing): This is associated with the Element Air. The root essence of the Unity — the stuff of which it is composed — is consciousness. Every thing that exists (mentally, astrally and physically) is a manifestation of this consciousness. The consciousness of the Unity is self-aware within all of its parts or manifestations, simultaneously and fully. In other words, the Unity knows EVERY thing, from the inside-out. This is not just the knowing of an external observer; rather, it is the knowing of a participant.
I wish for you to carefully consider the implications of this for the magician who merges with the Unity. Truly, any thing the magician wishes to know or explore is made instantly available. But this knowing will be from the inside-out in a most intimate manner. It is similar in quality to the sort of knowing we experience in our daily lives as we pass through a specific event. The difference is, as usual, in the quantity of the knowing. For example, we all know how to tie our shoes because we have experienced it numerous time, but in relation to the Unity we are like a small child who has never tied a shoe and our understanding of this mysterious art comes from the descriptions of our parents. In other words, the Unity knows EVERY thing from the inside-out and the normal human knows only a relatively few things from this perspective.
I must say that the conceptualization of this sort of all knowing is quite different from the actual experience. The magician who merges with the Unity is not only ABLE to know everything, she/he DOES know everything *while in the merged state*. Few magicians, however, choose to bring this knowledge back into their normal consciousness used for daily life. Knowing too much tends to take all the fun out of life — there is no longer any surprise.
3) All-Love or Mercifulness (Divine benevolence): This is associated with the Element Water. Please note that in Step Nine, Bardon associates Immortality with Water.
The divine Mercy is similar in quality to human love, except that in the human manifestation of love we tend to direct it at specific persons, ideas and things. Thus our human love is more limited than the divine love and it is a projection from ourselves to something external (self-love aside). The deific love of the Unity comes from a broader perspective that includes EVERY thing and it works from within each thing. It is without bias and is shared equally with All that exists.
It is common for us to wonder how the unpleasant aspects and events of life can exist in a universe permeated by a Benevolent deity. The answer to this lies within the quantity aspect of the divine benevolence or Mercy. The Unity permeates the whole of the infinite universe all at once and completely, thus it has an eternal perspective from which every event is seen as conforming to the universal lawfulness of things. In other words, from the eternal perspective of the Unity, benevolence is an undercurrent in All events, even the most unpleasant ones.
Suffering exists for a reason. It teaches us lessons that we have not been able to otherwise learn through more pleasant means. So at the core of each unpleasant situation lies the divine benevolence that knows this is the way in which we must learn — it is the root lesson that holds the benevolence, the manifestation of events is itself secondary. The only way sometimes, to perceive the divine benevolence behind unsavory events is to broaden one’s perspective to include lifetimes instead of single moments.
An adept who has merged with this divine Mercifulness may at times seem very stern, but this should not be mistaken for a lack of caring. At its root is the awareness of a much broader perspective on things than the ordinary human consciousness is able to achieve.
Such an adept will feel a deep love and concern for all creatures and will manifest their loving kindness willfully and in the most appropriate manner befitting the occasion.
4) Immortality (The same as Omnipresence in this case): This is associated with the Element Earth. In Step Nine, Bardon lists Omnipresence here, but if you think about it, this is essentially the same as Immortality in that the Unity is an immanent thing and thus it exists throughout the whole of space-time. The divine Immortality is not the same thing as what we consider when we think about the immortality of a human form. Theoretically, human immortality (if such a thing were to exist) is strictly a moment-to-moment matter of prolonged duration. In other words, the immortal human would pass through time moment-by-moment. While the quality of this is similar to divine Immortality, the quantity is quite different. The Immortality of the Unity occurs at an eternal level — the moment-by-moment duration is only a manifestation of the eternal Immortality.
But, and here’s a big but, nothing that is either astral or physical in its nature is eternal or immortal. True Immortality exists only at the level of the eternal, non-sequential realm.
I compare the Immortality of the Unity with its Immanence and say that they are the same thing because the Unity’s Immortality is eternal. It has no beginning and no ending and there is no ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘why’, ‘where’ or ‘when’ that does not partake of the Unity. The connection between these two may be easiest to perceive when you consider the space-time continuum. From the eternal perspective, the whole infinite span of space-time is perceived as one single present moment or as a grand, infinite “Now”. But, since the Unity is Immortal and eternal, this perspective is not just a from-afar sort of experience; instead, it is experienced simultaneously from the inside-out — from the perspective of each thing involved with the minute details of the physical manifestation of space-time to the most ephemeral and comprehensive experience of space-time.
While the feeling or quality of Immanence is similar to what the student experienced in Step Six with the practice of being aware of their mental body within their astral and physical bodies, there is a difference in terms of quantity. For the Unity, there is no separateness — there is no immediate sense of being WITHIN a body. Instead, the Unity completely fills the embodiments of its Immanence. The entire infinity of the manifest universe IS the Unity — it is not the mere shell which houses the Unity. There is no separation between the “body” of the Unity and the Unity itself. When we look at a rock or a leaf or through an electron microscope at a single molecule, we are looking directly at the Unity. When we look at each other or within our own selves, we are looking at the Unity.
The problem with the argument is that you have not
provided a precise definition of the word “unity”According to Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, the
first definition of unity listed there is:
“the quality or state of not being multiple : oneness”Thus my statement: >>Unity implies everything is the same.<< is valid.
J: No it implies everything is present.
You are using a different definition of unity!
I have no problem with this, but you didn't make the framework for discussion
clear.As to your comment "implies everything is present", then that is already true!
Everything is present! Everything else is illusional.S: Final completion sort of implies no further change occurs.<>Thus a final completion of unity would mean that
everything is completely uniform and static for all
time.<>I think that what is meant from the Taoist POV is
that eventually everything would gravitate toward
some kind of “perfect equilibrium”<>I don’t believe Taoists think that change would ever stop<>you see that it is both possible
for all times to exist simultaneously AND for time to “flow”–namely
it flows at each and every time!<<J: Agreed! But the simple fact is that the Buddhists would also agree. They would say: since it is all simultaneous and present at once, it cannot be flowing, since flowing implies it is going somewhere else, when in fact there is nowhere else to go.
This is why it is dangerous to use concepts like "motion" and "time"; they
lead to confusion. It's better to talk in terms of "change".For further discussion, I think it necessary that you precisely state
what *you* mean by "unity". Otherwise disagreements are bound to occur
based solely on language usage.Peace,
StevenI responded to your first response before seeing this one, so
just a quick comment before I respond to this in full:“I fully understand the taoist idea of unity as ‘continuous becoming’; what I’m saying is this does not in the least contradict the ideas of Bagua or of Buddhists that ‘it is already there you just have to realize it’. ”
If you are using the definition of unity as “continuous becoming”, then we already
have unity . . . and I agree with you.Apparently, your second post read my mind of what I was requesting from you
from the prior one 🙂Smiles,
StevenI agree with pretty much everything stated here, and I think
Rawn Clark’s concept is a fairly accurate picture.Ultimately the goal is one and the same.
The only real difference lies in the actual method of how
to achieve it, and how one should approach life to that end.The only difference I see in the Buddhist approach versus
the Taoist approach, say, is how life should be viewed
within this goal.For the most part, Buddhists see life as an irritation–something
that needs to be escaped from, because it acts as a distraction
based in suffering. Taoists on the other hand view life
as beneficial, and that physicality can not only be used
collaboratively toward the goal, but is an essential part
of the spiritual process. In this way, life is a vital
learning tool and is inherently wonderful–something
to be embraced. This is really the source of
disagreement–not that the viewpoint of realization
is disparate between the two schools. The apparent
“disgust” that many Taoists have for Buddhism seems
to be traced in a concept that since Buddhists
are trying to escape life, they are shutting down
and narrowing their options for advancement, i.e.
you can get more results by using life in a positive
collaborative way than if you reject it. All of this
of course is just a matter of opinion, and each
person will side with one viewpoint or another based
ultimately on the person’s personality.The only difference I see between these schools and
those of the magician are mainly mundane issues
based in which practices are used to accelerate
the process. Again, ultimately unimportant, and
residual arguments are based in semantics and
personal opinion.Ultimately all practices, when done with an open heart,
lead to the same truths. This is why no one set
of practices can necessary be said to be better than
another set. It really comes down to which set
of practices (or which multiple sets of practices)
seem to intrinsically sit the best with the seeker–because
those are the ones that will ultimately provide
the fastest progress for the specific individual in question.S
… Rawn’s description is not a ‘concept’ but a ‘description’ since he has indeed achieved the ‘unity merging’ himself, and even he says it is not that accurate a description, since it can’t be!
But what I am really trying to say is that in actual practice there is no real difference in what people say about this unity whether east or west. So I’m glad you agree with that! From how some people talk one imagines this huge chasm between the traditions on this subject which is not in fact there.
Several times this whole question of Buddhist ‘rejection of life philosophy’, which appears in Christianity and Hinduism of course too, as well as elswhere, has tripped people up into thinking there is a difference. This philosophy of the essentially negative aspect of material life is (as Michael says too) not borne out in terms of how Buddhists actually are and behave, I presonally don’t understand why they say it, so I ignore it! 🙂 🙂 🙂 j
… Michael visited this famous man’s cave and reported that Tsongkhapa’s concept of immortality strongly resembled his own, from what could be sensed there.
Well Tsongkhapa is a BUDDHIST! j
Budha, Jesus, Muhammad all came into places that already had traditions, and if there was civilizations Alchemical traditions. I known “Christians” that use the healing Tao methods and Toaist cosmology.
Christians must go to Taoism to find a working model often now. People are wanting methods not lectures. I’m not as convinced as I once was that the Christian method itself is completely lost, but it’s certainly not being openly taught! See Fulcanelli’s “La Mystere Des Cathedrales” for an amazing discussion of the alchemical meanings in cathedral designs and decoration, a knowledgeable and scientific discussion I mean, not a speculative popular one. The knowledge is all over them, even down to step of making the ‘elixir’ in the forms of symbols on the walls of naves…
Obviously if the original gospel of Thomas says to unite male and female, sun and moon, outside and inside, in order to ‘enter the kingdom of heaven’, this is really very very similar in principle to the alchemy taught here! The original point of my post was simply that, despite the differing outer vestments of traditions, it cannot possibly be the case in my view that when it comes to the ‘Unity’ they are talking about something different in each case! By definition all unities are the same Unity… ‘God does not care about our personal theology’… j
****Christians must go to Taoism to find a working model often now. People are wanting methods not lectures. I’m not as convinced as I once was that the Christian method itself is completely lost, but it’s certainly not being openly taught! See Fulcanelli’s “La Mystere Des Cathedrales” for an amazing discussion of the alchemical meanings in cathedral designs and decoration, a knowledgeable and scientific discussion I mean, not a speculative popular one. The knowledge is all over them, even down to step of making the ‘elixir’ in the forms of symbols on the walls of naves…
Obviously if the original gospel of Thomas says to unite male and female, sun and moon, outside and inside, in order to ‘enter the kingdom of heaven’, this is really very very similar in principle to the alchemy taught here!****
Yes I know.
****The original point of my post was simply that, despite the differing outer vestments of traditions, it cannot possibly be the case in my view that when it comes to the ‘Unity’ they are talking about something different in each case! By definition all unities are the same Unity… ‘God does not care about our personal theology’… j****
I think this is a case of the blind men and the elaphant. Its a story of blind men experiencing different parts of an elephant and assuming its is the whole thing. One feels the trunk and says its a spear the other its leg and says its a tree. Only when we come together with our experiences do we get a better picture of the elephant. I percieve Bagua was trying to warn people to keep there pratice heart centered which is acceptance and not to get attached to the changing tides , he stresses specificaly yuan shen I am not sure why when I find yuan jing, and chi wonderful as well and there dance and play an enjoyable adventure. I believe the split is that I percieve bagua believes that there will be no divorce at the point of death, willed or not will. I do not think the life force would keep an arrangement going when the will is not there to keep it going if you believe we have free will. If I got him wrong then I hope he corrects me.
Looking forward to see if I made since.
Well its going to be…. alright
Well its going to be…. yeah alrightHi:
“I think this is a case of the blind men and the elaphant. Its a story of blind men experiencing different parts of an elephant and assuming its is the whole thing. One feels the trunk and says its a spear the other its leg and says its a tree. Only when we come together with our experiences do we get a better picture of the elephant. I percieve Bagua was trying to warn people to keep there pratice heart centered which is acceptance and not to get attached to the changing tides , he stresses specificaly yuan shen I am not sure why when I find yuan jing, and chi wonderful as well and there dance and play an enjoyable adventure. I believe the split is that I percieve bagua believes that there will be no divorce at the point of death, willed or not will. I do not think the life force would keep an arrangement going when the will is not there to keep it going if you believe we have free will. If I got him wrong then I hope he corrects me.
Looking forward to see if I made since.”
*************************
Yuan means original or source, I use this term to be our original nature, which is contained in every person and is always part of us. If we focus our attention/Yi on this Qi/Consciousness/Awareness/Shen, whatever one prefers to call it is fine, in time and everyone is different we see this is our true nature, it is always with us regardless of the changes of life, by seeing this as our true nature we are able to enjoy the changes of life, enjoy the ebbs and flow because we do not try to keep or contol things that cannot be controlled, we dont attach our selves to the chaning nature of life. We allow life to unfold and enjoy it.Chinese have developed many methods to acheive this, so people practice what they resonate with. Never in Chinese philosophy does the human mind and human will power giving so much importance as seems to be in these discussion, please show me Lao Zi, Zhaung Zi, where they promote this?
TO be honest, some alchemy is very complex, very intellectual, people who need this will practice in this way, others will practice different versions of alchemy.
bagua
>>I think this is a case of the blind men and the elaphant. Its a story of blind men experiencing different parts of an elephant and assuming its is the whole thing. One feels the trunk and says its a spear the other its leg and says its a tree. Only when we come together with our experiences do we get a better picture of the elephant<<
… I'm not completely sure you're right there. To me the situation is that everyone who has experienced the elephant has had a very similar experience, which is what I was trying to get across with that Rawn Clark quote. There does not seem to be much variation in terms of what people say about the unity itself. There does seem to be considerable debate in terms of what its relationship is to practicing though. Perhaps I could say the situation is more like one where everyone has the same elephant but is describing it in a different language, and possibly, assuming (wrongly) that everyone else has seen a different elephant!
I just wanted to maintain that there can be no sense in which 'unity' differs from 'unity'. The 'one thing' is only one, it is beyond the bounds of possibility to suppose that one person or tradition *really* found the 'one thing' and the others are just faking it! The reason they all blabber on about the Unity is because there really is a Unity and it really is One Thing, and they found it, so ipso facto they all found the same thing. How they found it and what they did with it 'afterwards' is another story, but if Tsongkhapa made the same relationship with it as Michael is planning to make, clearly the differences between Buddhism and Taoism can't be *that* huge. So the rest is down to language.
Bagua, I grant you that the method of 'gradually seeing through the false' is a viable method, but I don't quite feel that spiritual science is the ego-crutch you feel it is, designed for those too falsely proud to simply sit! When one finds work with the four directions, the channels, whatever, in so many places, one can assume people who wrote about these things considered them important enough to write about.
But then, having heard what you've said so many times about original self being present in all of us when we wake up to it, I'm not getting anything from you yet on the question of transforming jing and/or 'uniting the two opposing halves of soul' as Michael would say. Do you feel – as Nan does – that simple sitting is the method there too? – if so that is just as the Cleary translations would have it, and I would not disagree myself necessarily. Or does this question simply not arise in your practice? Does sexual polarity play any role in what you do at all? Does the uniting of opposites happen in your practice, or does one merely continue to notice that opposites are false without any attempt to reconcile them?
j
“Bagua, I grant you that the method of ‘gradually seeing through the false’ is a viable method, but I don’t quite feel that spiritual science is the ego-crutch you feel it is, designed for those too falsely proud to simply sit! When one finds work with the four directions, the channels, whatever, in so many places, one can assume people who wrote about these things considered them important enough to write about.
**************************
I feel you make assumptions about what I am saying.1. I believe Alchemy can lead to the truth, its not guaranteed and there are many variations of Tao Alchemy.
2. Gradual or Sudden, I never talk in these terms.
3. I never mention ego crutches, its ego or Yi that must do the self realization, or the Wu Ji state is the origin of Yi, it is what guides or drives the desire of self realization.
4. I beleive in tao practices, i never promote only simply sit, i promote simply living, this pure awareness in all aspects of life.
5. Do not believe the detailed tao alchemy talked about here was what was practiced thousands of years, as new cosmology and qi gong practices evololved they rolled them into their model. Study a history of tao, its so intertwined with budddhist and confucuan theories, practices and understandings, this is chinese history.“But then, having heard what you’ve said so many times about original self being present in all of us when we wake up to it, I’m not getting anything from you yet on the question of transforming jing and/or ‘uniting the two opposing halves of soul’ as Michael would say. Do you feel – as Nan does – that simple sitting is the method there too? – if so that is just as the Cleary translations would have it, and I would not disagree myself necessarily. Or does this question simply not arise in your practice? Does sexual polarity play any role in what you do at all? Does the uniting of opposites happen in your practice, or does one merely continue to notice that opposites are false without any attempt to reconcile them?”
*******************************
Original seld is with us all the time, whether you focus on it or not, got it? You ego can choose to focus on other things or been conditioned but your original self is always there, not exception. Unity is when your ego/Yi focuses on this and see that as its true nature.If one finds it is beneficial to talk about split souls and harmonizing them or need to focus on the intensity of sexual polarity then do it, but dont think everyone needs to follow that path.
There is a bify differenece bewteen energy practices and self realization, they are no always the same, much of tao practices have nothing to do with self realization. Many tao alchemists, many HT practiioners are study hinduism and buddhism, lots, why if tao alchemy does it all? May are senior instructors and senior practioners?
There is nothing wrong in seeing how different methods lead to the same place or some bring certain things and some bring other things. It does not matter much if there is no attachment to a method and no emotional or financial stake.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.