Netero

Don't be so hard on Coop (I named him so based on the similarity of Dale Cooper in Twin Peaks). He's a language based AI, which is a fancy way of saying interactive Google search index on steroids and meth. Very limited due to the information training, but still quite fun. Here's your original questions answered.

Inspired by the now closed SoTG thread, I have had some thoughts in regards to the social dynamics of spiritual groups. I will refrain from naming names and specifying my own involvement with similar groups. I would like to encourage other posters to do so as well, encouraging to speak in generalities and not specifics. The thread was closed in order to avoid yet another TDB shitstorm, which is understandable, but I do find this subject matter to be important. We are not outing anyone in particular, but having a discussion in regards to social dynamics that are innate in our nature. I will start this discussion from a quote by Draja Mickaharic, who wrote his books in his late 90's/ early 100's. You can substitute the word "magic" for "mysticism". I am copying the quote from a PDF file, so apologies for the mismatch in the font. (EDIT: changed the font, so it should be more readable) The importance of the quote is this; when people join an organization, it is not so much about the technicalities of the practice but of the universal human need of social acceptance. Just look at this forum; while it is dedicated to spiritual practice, the social, frivolous aspects is what gets the more attention. Attributed to Picasso. The main point that I want to make is this. It is one thing to be a competent practitioner, but a whole different thing to be a competent teacher. And this is where I find the locust of a lot of trouble. To be a skilled practitioner requires a certain competency in a field -- to be a good teacher requires a very different form of social intelligence. But a lot of people who are respected in the area of Y tend to carry this notion that they're also competent in the areas of X and Z by virtue of their yes men and conceit. I.e I know a great deal about cats; hence, I can train your rabid elephant and give you a good tip on the stock market. This is the problem with authorities. I listened to a radioshow on a long ride home, so I forget the names, but it was during the 1960's where ethics didn't play too much into the equation. It was a social experiment. A sociologist, fronting as a Doctor, called in a hospital and told the nurses that their patient needed to receive a 20 ml shot of a mystery fluid. When the nurses got to the cabinet, the label of the mystery fluid said very clearly "DO NOT GIVE MORE THAN 10 ml". It was of course just water. But out of the 23 nurses this experiment went on, 22 went ahead and disregarded the label. Only 1 said no, this doesn't feel right. Who are you? Authority is an illusionary, but powerfull matter. Even without uniforms, medals, accolades and apostles, just posing as one during a phone call, using nothing but the voice will do. And the sad thing is that even a broken clock is right twice a day. Which makes fakes that much more alluring. You can be a somewhat competent practitioner and totalt shitbag of a human being at the same time. At the end of the day, the reason I'm writing all of this, is that I'm frustrated by people who say "dude, just find a teacher, you can't do this on your own". Or, alternatively, "my teacher is the best, you should like totally join our club". Nope. I've seen way too many spiritually competent people fail on the social allures of being head honcho. Which is my main point: it is one thing to be competent and another to be socially responsible. Spiritual teachings and social dynamics are two VERY different things. Proficiency in the former does not mean proficiency in the latter; this seems to be where a great deal of "teachers" fail -- to succumb to the temptation of social standing, authority and power. We've seen it before and we will see it again.

It depends. I think a timer is a great luxury to have, especially if you have a tight schedule and can only afford so much time. I'm especially thinking about morning meditations before work. "Sorry that I'm late, boss. Zoned out blissfully in my meditation again, you know". On the other hand, there is a mental caveat about a timer which has more to do with ones attitude towards practice. "When is that damn thing going to ring, I'm getting tired of this shit". I used to have this mentality in the beginning. I've meditated 10 min yesterday and 30 min today -- that means I'm x3 times more spiritual! Which is an absurd notion. Clichés are rightfully shunned because of their simplicity, but these sayings became clichés because simplicity is the seal of truth -- in meditation, it's all about quality over quantity. I've lost track of time as well, 15 min feeling like 2 min, so a timer is just a pragmatic solution. I'm certain I'm not the only one to have experienced this, but I have often been attuned to my "internal clock" during sleep, often waking up a minute or two before my alarm rang. It's a curious phenomenon, and while I'm sure it could be developed further, a timer just seems much more practical

Some more so than others, perhaps. I present to you: The Curious Tale of Steven Kubacki Excerpt from his own website. Quite a remarkable individual. What he fails to mention, perhaps for sensible reason, is that he made major headlines in the late 70's and is quite infamous as a hub for various conspiracy theories. As a student in February 1978, Steve went on a solo skiing trip in the SE area of Lake Michigan. He was reported missing the following day. Investigators found his skis and staffs, with a set of footprints from these that led to the edge of the Lake. And, here they stopped. The ice on the Lake hadn't been broken and no steps back was found. It was as if he had disappeared into thin air. I believe at some point that he was declared legally dead. 15 months later, without any recollection of what had happened, Steve woke up in a meadow in Pittsburg, MA, some 700 miles from where he had gone missing. He was wearing clothes that was not his and carrying a bag full of maps he did not recognize. He knocked on his fathers door, who lived 40 miles from where he woke up, and was surprised to learn that he had been missing for so long. He did not remember much. He felt like he had been running. He refused to talk to the media, as he had no recollection of things, and refused to speak to a psychologist, as he was adamant that there was nothing wrong with him mentally. He did not piggyback his strange story either -- there were no press conferences, no books, no movie rights, no tours of tall tales. Silence. Some 39 years later, in 2017 (his autobiography ends in 2003), there was an interesting book published, co-authored by Steven Kubacki himself and Brian Blackmore. It's a most curious title; Meta-Mathematical Foundations of Existence: Gödel, Quantum, God & Beyond From his own website, he summarises the following; Which I found VERY interesting and digestible. Quantum mechanics is certainly not my kind of soup as I do not have the brains for it, but it seems that Gödel was to physics as what Sextus Empiricus was to philosophy. As a final note, it would seem that one of Steven's protégés saw his story in the news, having known him for 6 years prior and called him up to see what's up. To his surprise, Steven consented to spill the beans, but I have yet to see the book in print. Something very particular did strike my attention though; It is my firm belief that Steven had experienced this "inconsistency" personally.

Back to OP's discussion; what is Neidan? Don, both you and @Taoist Texts seems to agree on this point, regardless of disputes about historical influences. The Neiye, with it's techniques of "Silent Sitting"/Numinous Mind, does indeed seem to be a universal preliminary to Neidan. Whether this particular text has influenced so and so, it is clear that "The Foundation" comes from a notion of detachment present in both the Neiye and Taoist Yoga, separated by centuries as they may be, with nods here and there throughout the centuries. I speculate that this is a major difference between genuine Neidan and the more popular form of Qi Gong. Leaving me with this: why is it important to have a Numinous Mind before undertaking such practices?

To Donald and Taoist Texts, whom I both respect dearly. I've been enjoing your posts for quite a while. Years. While you've both got different paradigms; Don being a Confucian-Platonist to an inkling towards acting magically upon the world as an active agent, and Taoist Texts, confidently and most assuredly experiencing the macrocosmic powers internally, to the point of doubting the objective validity of magic itself... As someone curious, could you perchance come to an agreement to the validity of Taoist Yoga? I know it's a shabby translation, but you're both going in different directions without necessarily disagreeing with one another. Rather than arguing, is there something you most certainly agree with?

Anyhow, this thread didn't shoot off into the intended direction I hoped it would, so I'll close it with some final remarks. Weidan seems to have largely been a religious endavour of ritual, not a mere creation of elixirs. Consequently, the three Dantians are first attested to within the religio-mystical context of Shangqing Daoism, where they're created as reflections of the Three Pure Ones of the Big Dipper. Stuart Alve Olson has an upcoming translation of the Yellow Court Scripture that looks promising and the works of Isabelle Robinet, James Miller, Poul Andersen and Stephen Bokenkamp deals with the exegesis of Shangqing scriptures, while the Baopuzi of Ge Hong gives a first-hand account of many practices of early China. For Neidan proper, the Cantong Qi and Wuzhen Pian seems to be the most prominent classics, before the establishment of the Quanzhen school and it's patriarchs, where the three teachings of Daoism, Confucianism and Buddhism come together, only to be split off in various sects, such as Wu Liu Pai and the Dragon Gate Sect. I have also taken a keen eye on Monkey Press and the works of Elisabeth Rochet Vallee in particular, as she expounds on many medicinal concepts such as Qi, Ying Yang and Wuxing according to classical sources (interesting enough, the Mencius appears as one of the early sources for Qi). Though the first three volumes of Jerry Alan Johnson's work looks fascinating and very comprehensive, I'm not to keen on his generalized and non-specific approach of "ancient Daoism says..." In general, I think a buttom-up approach is most reasonable, exploring early Daoism and progress forward in time, with the ocassional leap here and there. It seems ridicilous to jump into a particular school of thought without having studied it's roots, influences, progressional development and how it differs from others. That is my final say on the matter. I have quite a few things to see to, so I likely won't be returning back for replies. Take care, Netero

Excellent points sillybear. If I may digress for a moment, I actually found your website of Daoistmeditation before I knew you browsed this forum and very much liked what I saw. Your book of Internal Elixir Cultivation was recommended by another member here who goes by the name of tumoessence, also known as Walter Ogris of the German Hermetic Archives. The daobums seems to be a very strange melting pot - strange of the good kind, of course. Walter is a long time practicioner of Franz Bardon's IIH, a system I much admire for it's structured, fundamental and wholesome approach, so I take it as a good recommendation. If I may ask, what primary sources is your book built upon?

I've got a hold of the Ritsema edition of the Yijing and I've got my eyes on "Fathoming the Cosmos and Ordering the World: The Yijing and Its Evolution in China" by Richard J. Smith. There is enough cross cultural comparison to keep me busy for years, but I have foundational studies to do, both in regards to Eastern and Western mysticism and magic. The subject of teachers deserves it's own thread, so I won't go too much into the problematics associated with this topic. I believe my initial post adress some of these concerns well enough. In regards to the basics, I recall reading years ago a reference to a Japanese work by some teacher in whatever tradition that gave very specific rules for going to the bathroom. I am not against teachers or initiations, but I have seen this attitude expressed all too often - some people just can't take a shit without the directions of a teacher.

One thing I'm not intent on learning from books is something as intricate as Neidan. I think you misunderstood my point. To clarify; you use terms like xing, ming and post-natal -- where do these terms originate from, in what context do they appear in classical works, how did they change over time etc. The result would be twofold; on the one hand, I would be able to judge a system theoretically, and on the other, I would be able to categorize my experiences, to aptly tell in theory and practice whether something is post-natal or pre-natal for example. This could easily turn to a digression, so I will keep it short. Energy is a problematic word because it means very different things in various contexts. For example, keeping the word to it's mystical bent, "energy" can be equated with the Greek Pneuma, but it means different things for the Stoics and Aristotle, and along you get Synesius who synthesizes both views, based on Neoplatonic dynamics. One word, three different contexts. In Medieval and Renaissance times, you can equate "energy" with the Rays of Al Kindi, which is based on Aristotelian dynamics. And in the late 18th century, you can equate "energy" with the Animal Magnetism of Franz Anton Mesmer, which is based on Newtonian dynamics. Whose "energy" are we exactly talking about?

Greetings bums. In order to understand the roots of the many contemporary systems out there and place myself in a position to properly evaluate them, I have embarked upon a study of traditional sources pertaining to Internal Cultivation and hope that some knowledgeable bums might point me in the right direction. Suppose a well respected teacher, such as Jerry Alan Johnson, is instructing one to work with the Chakras. The practice might well prove to be "efficient", but let us consider this for a moment - the Tantrik texts have several models of Chakras, not just seven; they are created with a specific purpose in mind, and hence, a different model could well prove to have been more efficient for ones particular constitution. (see; http://www.tantrikstudies.org/blog/2016/2/5/the-real-story-on-the-chakras ) This notion, which I call the subtelty of the soul's anatomy, is likewise alluded to in Taoist Yoga by Charles L'uk - and yet I have read quite a few modern works which seems to presuppose that the Dantians are part and parcel of ones constitution. Another problem is translating "Qi" as "energy" - a very arbitrary New Age notion that doesn't fit into the traditional context the idea derives from, and hence stays just that: arbitrary and out of context. These are just some of the problematics associated with modern Daoism, and I much prefer not wasting my potential through a lack of knowledge, seduced by a love for tingly sensations and tall tales. As I don't read Classical Chinese, I'm relying on English works and translations. I'm aware of Komjathy's PDF of "Daoist Texts in Translation" but I'm at a loss how to approach that huge corpus of works, though I figure a study of the Yijing, Cantong Qi, Neiye and Huangdi Neijing Suwen is a good place to begin. Since Internal Cultivation is intertwined with areas as diverse as philosophy, cosmology, religion, astrology, alchemy, ritual, medicine and remnants of Wu 'shamanism', I more than welcome suggestions and discussions pertaining to these topics, provided the suggestions are true to tradition and the discussions kept civil. In summary, I'm looking to gain an understanding of foundational ideas within the realm of Internal Cultivation through traditional sources.

I believe it's vital to keep in mind that Daoism, being an emanative cosmology - like Neoplatonism and Indian Tantra - is formulating a very interesting idea that needs to be considered within the proper context. Wu Wei, as I interpret it, is about letting ones Earthly nature mediate the forces of Heaven and let them do the acting. A similar idea can be found in Kasmir Shaivism and it's cosmological model of 36 Tattvas. One of these is known as Ahamkara, the belittled scapegoat of New Agers known as the big bad "ego". It's a much misunderstood concept. The word roughly means "I do". As very dumbed down summary, for a Tantrik the goal is to change that to "Shiva does". I believe the case is much the same for a Daoist Sage who is in union with the Dao.

The overwhelming ephasis on personal power is a distinct product of 19th century magnetism. This sentiment is best expressed by Jules Dupotet Sennevoy, a highly influental but underappreciated figure of the occult revival. I have selected the following quotes from an abbreviated translation of his work going by the name "Magnetism and Magic". As we have seen, the soul is considered the efficient cause of all magical operations - later, in the development of animal magnetism, willpower and imagination came to play a pivotal role. A reading through Arthur Schopenhauer's "On the Will in Nature", specifically the chapter entitled "Animal Magnetism and Magic", will shed a great deal of light on the structure of modern esoterica. It can be found here; https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Will_in_Nature/Animal_Magnetism_and_Magic It is quite unfortunate that Dupotet's statement "indeed, we ought to substitute the word Magism for Magnetism" never became a reality. Instead, there is an underlying tendency, a culturally ingrained meme, which follows the sentiment of the early magnetisers - to interpret traditional magic through the lens of magnetism. Magnetism and traditional magic have quite different operational frameworks. It is important, I believe, to consider the magic of the oldtimers through their operative framework, not through a modern reinterpretation. I wish to emphasize: magnetism is a subset of traditional magic, in particular of Graeco-Arabic Neoplatonism as it was expressed in the Renaissance. This post is long enough as it is, and I do not have a sufficent education in Platonism to continue further satisfactory, so I digress. An excellent example of "ex opere operato" would be the occult virtues of minerals, plants and animals; Agrippa relied strongly on the "Marvels of the World" by the 16th century Pseudo-Albertus, who himself drew on the 4th century Hermetic treatise "Kyranides". The application of this philosophical doctrine is perhaps best known through contemporary Hoodoo rootwork. Another example of "ex opere operato" would be De Imaginibus by Ibn Qurra, which is an astrological treatise dealing with the creation of talismans, some of them specifically suited for ones natal chart. Instead of employing the inherent powers of nature as in rootwork, one employs the power of the stars through astrological technique, which has nothing to do with "magical training" in the conventional sense. Another important consideration we must take into account is the Pythagorean Quadrivium, being the four sciences of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. It doesn't take much imagination and willpower to see how these disciplines extends smoothly into the sphere of traditional ritual magic. With that said, the operator is never seperate from the operation - on the contrary, the two melt together. I will finish my ramblings with this: while the operator has a soul with it's own inherent powers that can be utilized, the operation too is constituted of elements with their own inherent powers. On an interesting sidenote, in consideration of the Catholic mass, I believe it might be fruitful to consider the meaning of the Biblical Greek word power; dunamis. https://gotquestions.org/dunamis-meaning.html

.

.