Who’s on first?

Good question. I’m not sure there are any verifiable answers. All this stuff we’re engaged in is more art than science, more feeling than facts. This doesn’t mean it’s not real, just that it’s not particularly measurable by any that would be beyond reproach.

Is the practice working for you?
Yes – then you’re doing it right and using your heart mind to direct your energy body.
No – then you’re engaged in empty visualizations

I know, this is ridiculous. But what other options do you have? Ultimately it comes down to faith in a particular process and your own internal feeling as to whether something beneficial is happening to you.

Winn’s point seemed to be that preliminary activity involving focused movement, breath and even ritual would put your entire being (mind, body, energy body, shen, etc.) in a prepared state so that further meditative practices would happen properly. I suspect he would also say that once you’ve been practicing properly for a while, you are much more likely to be in that “prepared state” on a regular basis, or can slip into it much more easily.

I largely agree with that analysis, and also share your wish there was a more exact way to measure progress. But I don’t think it exists.

My own view is that in the old days martial arts was a rough acid test for this sort of thing. I mean we can argue all day about who can move more chi but if my students can routinely kick your students’ asses then that’s at least some concrete proof that my practice is better than yours. For a variety of reasons, I don’t think that rough objective measure is available these days.

Michael will have to answer for himself but here’s my two cents’ worth.

Basically, I think you’re overthinking this.

I used to do some acting. In acting you memorize your lines and then go up on stage and recite them. You know where you’re going to move, when to cross the room, etc. You also understand the emotional content of the scene, what you want, how you’ll react, etc.

But to truly inhabit the piece, to live it, to make it real, you have to basically forget all that. Or, perhaps more accurately, learn it so well that your body just knows what to do and your mind can then shut off. I think dance and playing music are similar. Someone can be a technically proficient dancer or musician and still be “lifeless”.

I think what michael was saying in its simplest form is you have to get OTHER PARTS OF YOU involved in the process and not just rely on your head. In my opinion he defended his initial position to a level that was overly dogmatic (“I don’t teach visualizations”) but I dropped the semantic argument because I thought it irrelevant to the greater truth that was being discussed.

My view is that a “visualization” is any time you “see” an image with your inner eye. And I think this will always involve your cerebral cortex on some level. If michael or anyone else wants to argue that this is not the case . . . well, they are welcome but I think neither of us can really prove it.

My point is that your brain is always involved. Michael’s point is (I think) that your other organs are ALSO always involved (or should be) and — indeed — are actually what’s directing the brain. So, he might say, “let’s not focus on how the brain creates visualizations for us to follow and rather focus on ways to get the whole organism involved and to feel that whole involvement”.

Sustained