[witch]

There is no suffering in my desire, only pleasure.

[Xienkula1]

mat black, on Jun 30 2008, 03:14 PM, said:

Here's a taoist principle: undiscriminating virtue
i dunno, it's strange that it appears to be a very much overlooked element of taoist teaching, and yet to me, it seems to be the most important.
"If you wish to gain merit and become one with the divine, then develop your virtue and extend it to the world.
Let go of all conflict and strife.
Practice unswerving kindness and unending patience. Avoid following impulses and pursuing ambitions which destroy the wholness of your mind.
Neither become obsessed with circumstances, nor forego awareness of them.
To manage the mind, know that there is nothing, and relinquish all attchment."

"the first practice is the practice of undiscriminating virtue (being kind to everyone without partiality), just as high awareness of the subtle truth is gained through virtuous conduct and sustaining disciplines, so also is it maintained through these things"
"live a quiet and simple life feree of ideas and concepts. find contentment in undiscriminating virtue - the only true power. giving to others selflessly and anonymously, radiating light in all directions."

Wouldn't such a person be a man/woman of Tao?

Thanks for this it provides some excellent insight, and something I have been contemplating recently how to bring more of into my life authentically.

Vallar promotes a very similar principle of undiscriminating virtue. He says only when you have melted your soul in compassionate actions, only then does divine grace manifest. He says:

http://www.vallalar....n...d=1&ConId=5

This post has been edited by Xienkula1: 01 July 2008 - 10:52 AM

[witch]

I love darkness and illusion. And Maya.

[Taomeow]

witch, on Jul 1 2008, 06:48 AM, said:

I am throwing all my efforts into becoming material as possible and enflaming the passions. Personally I think spirituality, purity and longevity are overrated!

Zoroastrianism (the religion of ancient Persia) postulates a world based on a duality of spirit and matter which is the reverse of what we're used to. In their cosmology, matter is the absolute good, and spirit is the source of all things evil. The material world is called Truth; the spiritual world is called The Lie. Interestingly, all beings, including their supreme deity, have free will to choose one or the other. The almighty of their pantheon, upon some pondering, chooses Truth; while his evil twin, the spiritual one, chooses The Lie.

Smart guys, those ancient Persians!

Another bit of trivia: native religions of Africa all share a belief in reincarnation, but rather than trying to snuff out the process and quit reincarnating, they hold that the dead eagerly await an opportunity to come again to the warm material world of feeling, and are delighted when given a chance.

Some Pacific Islanders expect to become members of the white race when they die, because their word for "ghost" is "white man."

Another: "Whoever said the Chinese are spiritual is a liar." -- Lin Yutang (the translator of Zhuangzi, etc., author, inventor of the Chinese typewriter)

Longevity is not overrated though I don't think. A good life should last and last. It's a not-so-good one that might warrant termination with extreme prejudice -- the way they would like to terminate it in all those next-world- or next-dimension- or some other bigger-better-reality-based belief systems derived from having failed to master the art of living in this-here one.

This post has been edited by Taomeow: 01 July 2008 - 10:03 AM

[witch]

All times are now, so longevity is...well I don't know what it is, but it's not necessary. Of course it is nice! Just not overwhelmingly important.

xenolith, on Jul 1 2008, 05:58 AM, said:

As once did Siddhartha. May you also come to understand what he did.

That he didn't have the common sense of a peasant woman, who had to fish him out of the river and feed him when he was starving himself to death?

Now I've done it!

[steve f]

Taomeow, on Jun 30 2008, 12:01 PM, said:

Similarities are skin-deep, the core of taoism is humane, and the core of Indo-European modalities is anti-human. Makes one wonder who really originated this and what exactly for. That they've succeeded in teaching people to despise and deny the human life as a prerequisite for venturing into things "spiritual" is doubtless.

I disagree. I think it's more a matter of perspective. I think that you're creating some "ideal" Daoist entity in China that perhaps best exists in the minds of those who don't live there. The philosophy and intention may be humanistic yet the implementation and outcome has not been, historically, with any consistency. Similarly, although the superficial and liturgical aspects of Indo-European traditions may be 'anti-human', particularly when corrupted by institutions, the spirit is not necessarily so. I learned this in part from reading Anthony Dimello. He gave me a very different perspective of Catholicism and enlightenment. Hinduism and Zen, in particular are completely and solely human, albeit from a different cultural and sociological perspective.

mat black, on Jun 30 2008, 03:14 PM, said:

To manage the mind, know that there is nothing, and relinquish all attchment.

Wonderful and salient post, as always, Mat. Our attachment to Daoism, it's practices and philosophy, it's strengths and achievements, are still just attachments of the mind, nonetheless. Not much different from attachments to people, things, pleasures, pain, and so forth. In fact, philosophical and spiritual attachment is often more intense and subtle and difficult to shrug off! I love the irony of examining our intense attachment to the philosophies that ask us to recognize and let go of all attachment!

In my view, there is little separation between the major religious and philosophical traditions when one digs into the core values, principles, and admonitions...

[drew hempel]

http://home.att.net/...a/arms/bohr.htm

[Taomeow]

exorcist_1699, on Jul 1 2008, 01:22 AM, said:

Never can I agree that Taoism is a science unless you have a very broad definition of the term "science" , for example , "anything in search of truth.."

We have to admit that Science and Taoism , they adopt totally different spiritual skills and use different means ; in case of science, it requests clear definition of terms , relies on our senses to collect data , uses apparatus to measure precisely , summarize into mathematical formulates , follows statistic principles..etc;

In the case of Taoist practice : delicate intuition,no reasoning (at least at that moment ) ; using our body as a means( because jing and qi are there ) , direct manipulating of qi inside our body , then outside our body..

Science 's achievement is great, it gives us a lot of daily, physical conveniences and spiritual pleasure , however, from the standpoint of an individual, do you think it gives us the grasp of our destiny in our hands and real unity with the universe (real ,direct unity , not those philosophical bullshits) ?

Maybe talking about unity with the universe seems something too big, let us consider something trivial and humble : For example, for most of the people, they even can't get rid of a cold caught, let alone having their destiny grasped in their own hands .

To those who criticize the so-called Neo-taoism, those who are unable to comprehend that the jing-qi-shen framework is the continuation of Lao Tzu's thought, Taoist heritage , I only want to say : If we are incapable of getting rid of small disease like a cold ourselves, the claim of grasping our destiny in our hands , or other big words ,are just some kinds of philosophical bullshits , even though they are spoken by Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu.

Well, my definition of a "science" is not too broad (and I'll give it in a moment ) but when I apply it to our modern science, or what has been defined as "science" in the past one hundred years or so, I have to come to the same conclusion as Linus Pauling of two Nobel prizes, who said that our modern medicine is not a science. The definition he would apply to anything that would warrant viewing this anything as a "science" I apply too, and that's when it transpires that taoism is a science, a good definition can clarify what it is we're looking at. No, it's not the "universal search for truth" or anything like that. It's not a collection of "facts" (it's a fact that this collection is revised continuously and whatever was a "scientific fact" ceases to be so in the face of a new "scientific fact" that proves the former one "fiction" -- used to be half of our "scientific facts" being thrown out every fifteen years, but now it's faster -- the more of them we collect, the more they contradict each other, so "scientific facts" are being thrown out by scientists about as fast as new "scientific facts" are being introduced. The balance therefore is zilch. But that's not what I'm talking about.) Neither is technology -- any technology -- any proof that what has gone into making it tick is a "science" -- consider cellular metabolism, a precise technology of mother nature, more complex than anything created by man and infinitely more proven and efficient on this planet, working without any scientific claims at all... if something works, it works, but it doesn't make it a science.

What makes a science a science is its ability to be congruent with its own postulated theory no matter what aspect of reality we apply it to, to not contradict its own premises no matter what process or event or phenomenon we investigate. Now let's see. Our quantum physics is in a chronic crisis which it calls "the search for a unified theory," to give the crisis a nicer-sounding name, as though the difficulty is only temporary and the promise of truth is just around the corner. Our astrophysics keeps shooting itself in the foot because, being creationist (like the religion that went before), it postulates a beginning and an age to our universe, and then keeps changing the date because, well, thirty years ago they lived happily with an 8-billion-year-old universe -- till they discovered 18-billion-year-old matter in some of its stars, so they decided on a compromise figure of a 15-billion-year-old universe -- does it make any sense to you? And what will happen when they are slapped with a "new scientific fact?.." But of course our life sciences take the cake. Have you ever heard of an MD who has studied biophysics in med school? No? Neither have I -- and yet we ARE biophysical creatures, but we are studied and manipulated only in terms of chemistry, i.e. scientific approach to our being is at all times commensurate with what the scientist had a chance to learn for the multiple choice exam, and we can't be tackled in a way that will overstep these boundaries -- that would be unscientific, right?.. to operate in the territory of the scientist's personal ignorance -- that's our definition of unscientific. And what about reconciling our biology with our cosmology? Our linguistics with our ethnobotany? Our thermodynamics with our psychology? Our forensic sciences with our agriculture? In other words, our science as a whole doesn't have a unified theory that would connect one science to the next to the next to the next in a non-contradictory manner -- or at all, for that matter. And according to Linus Pauling, that's not a science if it doesn't have an underlying conceptual unity, it's a mere collection of dubious facts (that keeps being revised) and monkey-see-monkey-do technological prowess here and there, is all. A science of medicine, e.g., he asserted, would start out by defining what health is. Ours doesn't. It can't, because to define health, it would need the very unified theory it's lacking. So it just doesn't. Its definition of health is "doctor knows best," is the best it can do. Is it scientific to you? It isn't to me -- or to Linus Pauling.

And this is where taoism shines as a science that meets this very criterion beautifully. Taoism postulates a unifying theory, a few simple axioms -- change, cyclic nature of change, yin-yang, qi, Wuxing, ganying. These it then applies to its all investigations, theoretical and empirical alike -- cosmology, biology, social dynamics, agriculture, anatomy and physiology, psychology and technology, geography and geomancy, you name it -- and no matter where they go with it, it holds up, it doesn't contradict itself, it doesn't have to ignore its own conclusions drawn in the course of some other investigation in order to remain operational. It is what we don't have: a science of reality, not of fragments, shards, snippets thereof that we have. And because no matter what fragment we might choose to examine, if we apply taoist basics they are not powerless, ever, to tackle it, I believe taoism is THE science. So my definition is, a science is an interface between our world and our knowledge that doesn't fail no matter where it is placed. So by this definition, taoism is the only science today. Not "trying to be," not "not as good as," not even "as good as" what we've been told is science, but "the only one." Funny, huh?..

[mikaelz]

xuesheng, on Jul 1 2008, 02:39 PM, said:

In my view, there is little separation between the major religious and philosophical traditions when one digs into the core values, principles, and admonitions...

indeed!

any serious student of mysticism and perennial philosophy can attest to this. those that view a certain tradition as 'superior' just haven't really dug deep into other philosophies. this is being a fundamentalist.. this is being in the 'mythic' worldview of separation.. this is clinging to old habits and beliefs that only reinforce the egoistic illusion of superiority

i too was ignorant for a while, thinking that East > West, until I studied christian mysticism and the works of saints such as St Teresa of Avila and St John of the Cross. also studied Sufism for a little bit, which is mystical Islam..tried to get into my Jewish roots a bit by studying Kabbalah, a bit overly complex to me but found much in common with everything else. the introduction in a kabbalah book I picked up in Tzfat, birthplace of kabbalah in Israel, by a very prominent Rabbi said that the wisdom of the ancient tibetan buddhists and that of qabala masters is identical.

all the same, all the same. semantics... different fingers pointing to the moon. why get caught up on the finger? saying this finger is better than that finger? when the moon should be the real point of concentration

This post has been edited by mikaelz: 01 July 2008 - 12:07 PM

[Taomeow]

mikaelz, on Jul 1 2008, 01:04 PM, said:

indeed!

any serious student of mysticism and perennial philosophy can attest to this. those that view a certain tradition as 'superior' just haven't really dug deep into other philosophies. this is being a fundamentalist.. this is being in the 'mythic' worldview of separation.. this is clinging to old habits and beliefs that only reinforce the egoistic illusion of superiority

i too was ignorant for a while, thinking that East > West, until I studied christian mysticism and the works of saints such as St Teresa of Avila and St John of the Cross. also studied Sufism for a little bit, which is mystical Islam..tried to get into my Jewish roots a bit by studying Kabbalah, a bit overly complex to me but found much in common with everything else. the introduction in a kabbalah book I picked up in Tzfat, birthplace of kabbalah in Israel, by a very prominent Rabbi said that the wisdom of the ancient tibetan buddhists and that of qabala masters is identical.

all the same, all the same. semantics... different fingers pointing to the moon. why get caught up on the finger? saying this finger is better than that finger? when the moon should be the real point of concentration

It has been my experience that while some fingers do point to the same moon, others -- most in fact -- point up the pointer's asshole. Discerning between fingers and what it is exactly they're pointing at is therefore a worthy pursuit AFAIK.

A "fundamentalist" is someone who tells you, "my way is the only right way for YOU, and if you don't follow me, you're in trouble, and it proves you're an ego-driven ignoramus, blah blah,"

and NOT someone who says, "my way is the right way for ME, so don't tell me to follow yours, I'm not interested, thank you."

[林愛偉]

mikaelz, on Jul 1 2008, 09:20 AM, said:

watch the movie Samsara, its about a monk who realizes that being celibate isn't the answer.. you have to experience samsara to truly understand it. but then a teaching comes to him "is it better to satisfy 1000 desires or conquer just one?" he was so enveloped in desire that it grew more and more, soon greed came upon him.. he even cheated on his wife. he becomes aware of this and truly realizes the meaning of the teachings through experience. that is why it is called the wheel of samsara, its a circle.. it never ends once you step inside of it. the desire is never quenched, the wheel never stops moving, the suffering never ends.

Being celibate may not be the answer for him. Only because his mind still holds attachments to form.
Desire doesn't arise out of the "naturalness" of it. It is only seen as natural because we don't see the origin of it and we don't know the function of it.

It is due to attachments to tastes, sights, sounds, smells, touch, and thought that we have desire. Lessen those thoughts, and the desire lessens as well.

His actions have nothing to do with celibacy. It has everything to do with his mind. When people can't control themselves, they blame the conditions, when in fact it is their attachments to the views of the conditions which influences their mind and behavior.

There is nothing wrong with celibacy. I know people who stay celibate till their 40s, just because they haven't found the right person. And they do just fine! No sicknesses, they look just as young as I am, and some of them are Chinese Medicine Doctors, and some of them don't even care for Qigong.

Just as well, one's good conditions will be another one's afflictions.
It all comes down to the views we hold of them and how we utilize those views.

Peace and Blessings

Lin

[SiliconValley]

Taomeow, on Jul 1 2008, 02:17 PM, said:

A "fundamentalist" is someone who tells you, "my way is the only right way for YOU, and if you don't follow me, you're in trouble, and it proves you're an ego-driven ignoramus, blah blah,"

and NOT someone who says, "my way is the right way for ME, so don't tell me to follow yours, I'm not interested, thank you."

Taomeow,

Saying my way is "superior" is also kind of fundamentalist, especially when it is not clarified that such statements are applicable only to oneself?

Quote

Taoism is different from the rest of them all in that it is, first and foremost, a science. Don't let "strange names" for "strange phenomena" which "may or may not exist" fool you. It is a science of the superior kind.

Quote

Similarities are skin-deep, the core of taoism is humane, and the core of Indo-European modalities is anti-human.

Quote

That they've succeeded in teaching people to despise and deny the human life as a prerequisite for venturing into things "spiritual" is doubtless.

I bet you have no clue of the diverse systems of Indian philosophy [now that you mentioned Indo-European], especially Tantra and Sankhya. So how are your statements not reflective of fundamentalism, when you seem to be passing judgments on various systems with no clear understating?

This post has been edited by SiliconValley: 01 July 2008 - 08:39 PM

[xenolith]

witch, on Jul 1 2008, 11:08 AM, said:

That he didn't have the common sense of a peasant woman, who had to fish him out of the river and feed him when he was starving himself to death?

Now I've done it!

Not at all dear ZB, you have my most positive intentions. The fishing out of river experience is but participle of the lesson of Siddhartha, that being: sensuality deceives, Love reveals. Manifest in this lesson are smaller lessons...principle among them address energy exchange, compassion, ego and the role of the Tao in guiding one's self exclusive of society...again, Siddhartha found them...so may you.

[Taomeow]

SiliconValley, on Jul 1 2008, 07:45 PM, said:

Taomeow,

Saying my way is "superior" is also kind of fundamentalist, especially when it is not clarified that such statements are applicable only to oneself?
I bet you have no clue of the diverse systems of Indian philosophy [now that you mentioned Indo-European], especially Tantra and Sankhya. So how are your statements not reflective of fundamentalism, when you seem to be passing judgments on various systems with no clear understating?

Well, I didn't use the word "superior," I described the difference as I see it. That's "difference," not "superiority." However, you're the second person in this thread to hear the "superior" message where the "difference" message is clearly stated and exactly this word, "different," is repeatedly used. Any idea why?..

To reiterate: yes, I do believe taoism is different. So do masters I trust. So do researchers with a clue.

As for your betting I have no clue of the diverse systems of Indian philosophy, you're gonna lose the bet. I started my pursuit of knowledge in this area many, many years ago, both theoretically (reading most source books and the voluminous History of World Religions) and empirically (meditation, yoga, applied Ayurveda, which I studied in some depth and have used and still use on occasion; and the guidance of a monk). So I do have a clue. If anything, I am slightly partial to Hinduism, which I find philosophically rewarding and whose medical system fascinates me almost as much as the Chinese/taoist one, the latter being, if anything, simpler and more user-friendly, not "superior," which is why I use it more than Ayurveda. But buddhism... when I say it's anti-human, is there anything you know to disprove it that I don't? You're supposed to be born human as punishment for having had attachments, desires, and so on. If you're born, it means you're in trouble, it means something is already wrong with you, and for you. If this isn't anti-human, what is?.. I didn't make it up, my friend. Merely noticed.

As for the rest... I, not being a buddhist, have every intention of having "attachments" and "detachments" as I see fit, and I am attached to taoism, and detached from all Indo-European religions, most sciences, and definitely all claims of their "equality." Christianity doesn't equal Islam, much less taoism. Neither does buddhism. This, again, is not a statement of superiority, but a statement of a clearly perceived difference and a clearly made personal choice. Hope you (and mikaelz... shoot, I think I'm misspelling this, sorry) can find it in your hearts to stop having a problem with that.

Lin's frequent statements of buddhism's superiority vis a vis taoism, by the way, don't bother me. I never have a problem with people attacking ideas, whether I see them as right or wrong -- I do have a problem with people attacking people though, in response to a statement of a different bunch of ideas. Lin is exemplary in this respect. We don't even see our respective toes eye to eye I don't think, but he has never called me names, "fundamentalist" or what have you, and that's why I don't have to worry that what he believes makes little sense to me and what I believe, to him. So what? Long as he's not trying to kick me -- the way you do -- why not let him call taoism late for dinner?..

[林愛偉]

Taomeow, on Jul 1 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

Lin's frequent statements of buddhism's superiority vis a vis taoism, by the way, don't bother me. I never have a problem with people attacking ideas, whether I see them as right or wrong -- I do have a problem with people attacking people though, in response to a statement of a different bunch of ideas. Lin is exemplary in this respect. We don't even see our respective toes eye to eye I don't think, but he has never called me names, "fundamentalist" or what have you, and that's why I don't have to worry that what he believes makes little sense to me and what I believe, to him. So what? Long as he's not trying to kick me -- the way you do -- why not let him call taoism late for dinner?..

Actually, what I see is that Daoism and Buddhism have a very very very similar education when it comes to cultivation. Only that many in the Daoist cultivation school remain attached/stuck in form realms, and in that respect take a longer time to attain enlightenment.

Its just another manner of cultivation in the universe. Buddhism doesn't worry about the in between, because they can recognize conditions and outcomes from the beginning. SOmetimes Daoist cultivation delves deep into the process of things.. but not always.

Both are wonderful. But some manners in both are only necessary given the conditions of the cultivator.

I was taught both, and still study both. But I never once see them as totally different, and or one being more superior than the other. From the state I am in and the conditions I have cultivated through, Daoism has the methods to purify the body, yet to a certain level, the conduct and heart seems to be last. Not with all though.

So far in the Hua Shan School, which I am associated through, and has its direct connection with Quan Zhen; all same family, just different disciples in different regions creating a group, purity of mind/heart is first and foremost, and in the process, keep the body healthy, cultivated as well. It is Quan Zhen Dao foundation, which has a great amount of its education from Buddhist and Confucianist schools.

My Daoist Shifu always tells me that Buddhist cultivation methods and expedients of spiritual powers are safer than most Daoist ones. Reason being, one has more of a chance of getting possessed by demons in some magickal aspects of Daoism than they do Buddhism due to the vows of the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas to protect sincere cultivators of the teachings of virtue and moral, wisdom and compassion.

And my Buddhist Shifu, when once asked the difference between Buddhism and Daoism, he said,
"Buddhism, Daoism...Chinese, American...aren't we all people?!"

The practices in cultivation of Daoism to attain states, with guidance of a wise teacher, is wonderful! These states are not easy to get too, and not safe to try without a deep resolve to remain virtuous, in order to tame the desires. The teachings are the same.. in most respects... its just that like I said, there are some things in Daoism that are not regarded to be important that Buddhist education covers, and vice verse. Neither should be seen, argued to be better...only how to make the methods of both fitting for the conditions of the minds of living beings of this world to help them attain wisdom!

After that...NO PROBLEM

The energetic cultivation in Buddhism is through the mind, in which the body follows suit. Daoist cultivation is of the body, reach states through mind from cultivating the body. Afterwards, for some reason in the more modern Daoist education, virtue and moral is last. It should be the other way around in order to attain immortality, which is just a state anyway, and thus attain enlightenment.... flip it any way one wishes, enlightenment should be the goal, for once it is completed, one would have the wisdom to utilize any and all Spiritual Penetrations/Powers.

At a certain state, no matter what name of one's school of cultivation, the methods are what counts. There should be no label/mark of the method...only the wisdom to realize which method helps one realize their result. For whatever reason one cultivates, they will attain that state as their result.

Peace and Blessings Tao Meow!

Lin

P.S.- I'm returning to NY on July 4th... Afterwards, I am sure we'll have time to meet up for some tea... hehe we might not have similar views, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy some good tea!

This post has been edited by 林愛偉: 01 July 2008 - 10:12 PM

[SiliconValley]

Taomeow, on Jul 1 2008, 10:38 PM, said:

To reiterate: yes, I do believe taoism is different. So do masters I trust. So do researchers with a clue.

They are all different systems because they are "different" at some level, and it does not take a researcher or an ascended master to know that, some common sense would suffice

As for Lin, if your tone when stating your ideas was even half as respectful towards other systems as his, I would be the last one to speak out. This is my last post on this thread

This post has been edited by SiliconValley: 01 July 2008 - 10:56 PM

[Taomeow]

林愛偉, on Jul 1 2008, 10:56 PM, said:

P.S.- I'm returning to NY on July 4th... Afterwards, I am sure we'll have time to meet up for some tea... hehe we might not have similar views, but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy some good tea!

Welcome home -- have a safe and enjoyable trip! I'm sure you know about stretching throughout the flight and drinking plenty of water -- I always do yoga in the isle on a long flight, this and water and vitamin C and a yin diet the day before and fasting on the flight and a yin diet the next day nip jet lag in the bud.

[林愛偉]

Taomeow, on Jul 2 2008, 12:12 AM, said:

Welcome home -- have a safe and enjoyable trip! I'm sure you know about stretching throughout the flight and drinking plenty of water -- I always do yoga in the isle on a long flight, this and water and vitamin C and a yin diet the day before and fasting on the flight and a yin diet the next day nip jet lag in the bud.

HEY LOOK! We do have something in common! haha

I do the same exact thing on long flights. Except for the Vitamin C, because I can't get it out here..atleast that I don't trust any out here.. hehe I never get jet lag because of the stretching, hydration, and sitting meditation the whole flight.. keeps the mind sharp indeedy

Thanks for the tips! I'll definetly remember them

Peace,
Lin

[exorcist_1699]

The Buddhist methods , in most cases, do have preconditions untold , ie, they assume that people who
practice them are monks living in temple on top mountain. Because of that , it is not necessary to mention the
importance of reserving jing .

Skipping the jing and qi issues does make attaining Enlightenment very difficult for ordinary people .Without having an experience of Enlightenment or something close to it , the Buddhist key idea can never be understand by the mass, even by those well educated , for it is nothing related to how much knowledge and experience you have .

The taoist jing-qi-shen framework makes thing clearer and easier provided that at every stage of your practice , whatever you get and no matter how precious it is , you do not stick to it , otherwise your
path climbing up is forever finished .

[林愛偉]

Quote

The Buddhist methods , in most cases, do have preconditions untold , ie, they assume that people who
practice them are monks living in temple on top mountain. Because of that , it is not necessary to mention the
importance of reserving

Not at all. There is no standard of such in the Sutras whatsoever; except to keep close the virtue and moral cultivation, keep to the precepts one accepts, and be mindful of the Triple Jewel.
There are many many many lay cultivators that actually cultivate much better than most left home cultivators. It is even more necessary to conserve jing when not being a left home cultivator...much more difficult actually. This is why the persistence in holding to one's resolve as a lay cultivator is stressed, and why many lay cultivators do not become lazy like many left home ones.

We have a saying which goes: At home, or left home...left home, or at home...Peace, Stillness, is all of ONE Heart. That means, it doesn't matter where you go, leave the home life, or stay home; it is still the mind which must be tamed, cultivated...its still just the mind.

Quote

Skipping the jing and qi issues does make attaining Enlightenment very difficult for ordinary people .Without having an experience of Enlightenment or something close to it , the Buddhist key idea can never be understand by the mass, even by those well educated , for it is nothing related to how much knowledge and experience you have .

This is true for the most part. But not even key Daoist principles are understood by the masses. The fact is that whatever one cultivates, they can only get ahead by the capacity to understand each level they attain.
The only one's that can fully understand Buddhism to the T are Buddhas. Even though the teachings within the Sutras are very to the point and clear, the comprehension is still based on the individual cultivator's ability to understand, as well as the wise advisor's understanding, and ability to expound the teachings properly.

Quote

The taoist jing-qi-shen framework makes thing clearer and easier provided that at every stage of your practice , whatever you get and no matter how precious it is , you do not stick to it , otherwise your
path climbing up is forever finished .

The manner of non-attachment is totally correct; do not get attached to each level.

YET, even with the Jing, Qi, Shen layout, those teaching it also get stuck in states and can only teach such to their students. There is too many levels that are attained, though not all at once, and one should have mastered the San Hua Jv Ding before even teaching it.

How to tell? A master knows that cultivation of any label is simply cultivation, and harnessing the breath, transforming the mundane desires, and changing behavior, lead to wisdom, thus immortality at higher stages, thus enlightenment when all views are dropped.

Just simple cultivation of it isn't enough.

As for the Jing, Qi, Shen cultivation method, the guidelines are very clear; Celibacy to an extent, and Retention always: Preserves Jing. Transformation of Jing to Qi through MCO, via retention to keep the jing at high levels, as well as non-attachment to states in between; sensations, bliss-states, and abilities that arise: Jing to Qi. Raising the the two to reach the crown; via retention and not wasting Qi through playful escapades of sex, desire indulgence and false thinking, bad habits: Thus stimulating the Crown to such a point where the Yang Qi can become so highly vibrating that it raises one's energy/mind to attain proper wisdom. : Qi to Shen.
At such stage, the body's weaknesses are removed, and the body can thus transform to being a vibrant, yang manifestation... Shen replacing Xu= weakness. At this high level, the 3 flowers (San Hua) reach the crown, with great intensity that energy can thus meet at the crown, clear the body of illnesses, abilities attained, though not all, and one may attain immortality if guided correctly....Dilligent practice, not one moment swaying is needed.

In between is where most go wrong. The Buddhist teachings are the same as in the guidelines to attaining enlightenment. In between, there are states which are reached, but not spoken of openly as much as Daoist cultivators...and even Daoist cultivators do not speak frivolously. The processes aren't focused on because they happen naturally with proper guidance and cultivation in the Buddhist school...given one has found a god and wise adviser.

There is a science of both. One deals with direct mind transformation which leads to health, vibrant body, clean in and out. The other works the mind and body transformation, which results in the same thing. BUT working mind and body together with intent focus; without controlling the mind in desires, lust, emotions, and behavior, causes more problems faster than the latter.

This is another reason why cultivation of any type MUST have a teacher to guide the student. SO important , SO important!

Another reason why High level Buddhist cultivators do not discuss such processes as Daoist teachers do, is because the mind of most living beings is so messy, and all over the place, that what ever they cultivate, without taming the mind, would cause more afflictions.

There are two roads to the same source here... Non are faster, and non are slower than the other. It all depends on the mind cultivating. And it doesn't happen from one lifetime of cultivation. It is carried over through countless lifetimes, till at one point and time the cultivation at a certain level is completed. This is also why we see some beings with great spiritual abilities which they attained in this lifetime. Its not because they only began when they were young, or even at an older age. It is because they have always been doing it, for many lifetimes, and in this lifetime we see some of their accomplishments.

ALways check virtue first.. which many mock as some religious, moral garbage...very important.

Left home cultivators do not havemost of the influences as lay people do, this is another reason why they are cultivating things that most lay people don't know, and will not get. There are exceptions in both cases of Daoism and Buddhism, and both have their respected guidelines to follow for successful transformation.

What you say is good. There is just some things in between that probably have not been cleared up before in books and in classes that many of those here have read and attended. So in support of what you say, I hope what I have written above adds to the manner of clearing up the in betweens and works to put a new view on how Daoism and Buddhism actually have similar principles...and that its not about the better one, its about the mind which is cultivating the methods which counts.

Peace and Blessings,
Lin

This post has been edited by 林愛偉: 02 July 2008 - 02:12 AM