Paradoxal

What I am mostly familiar with is not the Yijing, but other forms of divination, most of which are western in origin. Therefore, I cannot answer specifically on the Yijing, but I can give an answer that seems to have covered most divination that I have been exposed to. I am aware this is the Yijing section of the forum, so please forgive me for answering on such a nonspecific basis! With that preface, from what I can tell, the information given comes not from an entity of sorts, nor from a split of the self such as intuition, but from a sector of the astral where all information, past and present, is kept. I believe that some people call this point the akashic records, but I don't know how accurate that name is. I feel it might be worth looking into this concept if you are looking for the source of the answers you get.

I was like this from birth! Generally speaking, I've always been able to feel that sort of thing in about a mile radius around me. It was definitely comparable to hell, and I would often feel the problems worse than the people suffering them themselves did! When I finally learned some sensitivity to energy, I figured out where my mood instability was coming from; it was from all the input from outside! I learned how to shield, and ended up being able to be more social than before, but still needed to shield whenever I talked to anyone or was around someone. Thankfully, in the more recent times, my cultivation practice has made it so that I no longer feel it as badly as before (though, I can still feel most intentions quite distinctly! Malicious postings are no fun to look at, for sure!), and I no longer am emotionally effected by these things. I feel it, go "oh, that poor person must be quite angry.", and move on. Thinking about it now, it was both a blessing and a curse. I've definitely prevented at least five suicides thanks to this ability, as the more emotionally screwed people gravitated to me, but it also made my formative years a living hell. I think the net positives outweigh the suffering I went through because of it, but I also recognize that I walked a very thin line between sanity and insanity for the first twenty years of life!

Have you tried sugar-free gummy bears? https://www.amazon.com/Sugar-Free-Gummy-Bears-5LBS/product-reviews/B00CMS97YS

Understood, thank you for sharing even a little!

Would you be willing to go into signs for all three that you mentioned? I find the direct signs to be quite a nice change when compared to other things I've studied.

What signs would there be of someone who is a Zhenren?

Does the lack of sweat also happen when doing severe exercise, or is it simply an immunity to external factors?

I had trouble trusting in my gut initially as well. Before getting into constant samadhi, it can be quite challenging to fully "get" what your gut howls about. One way that I used to train it was something I found in a book called "DIY Magic". It's a small trick, and it goes as follows: Carry a coin at all times in your pocket. Whenever you have a decision to make, take the coin out of your pocket and flip the coin. Decide what decisions go with heads and tails. Catch the coin, and avoid looking at where it landed. Put it back into your pocket, and divine which side it landed on. Follow through with whichever side it landed on in your divination (guess or visualization works best). This method takes the need to think out of the equation, which gets you better at understanding *how* a gut feeling feels. Eventually, you won't need a physical coin for the same results, and can visualize flipping a coin to get your answer. Afterwards, the answer will come naturally without flipping a coin. The other methods I can recommend are to simply practice making decisions with your gut (without thinking about them) to eventually learn to trust your gut, or learn to enter samadhi (though, this is quite a tall order!). When your mind is silent, your gut shines through quite nicely. The thing that eventually convinced me to stop making decisions with my mind was when my gut screamed at me for over a week to take an extended break off work. I was tempted to not come in, or just quit my job entirely due to this feeling. Eventually, I made a decision mentally and asked the boss for a week off. He granted me it off, but still had me work a week ahead of time. On my last day in that last week, not even an hour into the job, I was hit by a speeding driver. Insurance refused to cover and it turned into a huge deal. If I had listened to my gut, I wouldn't have even been there to be hit by said driver!

Your aura is indeed rather pure, but it is not at the buddha level. It is good to teach what you can to others, but do not mistake a change in attitude for enlightenment. Such a change is the natural result of channels clearing, but it is definitely not the end goal of "enlightenment". Be cautious of the ego, as even when it has receded, it can still cause problems until it is fully gone.

I'm not exactly an initiate in a formal tradition, but I'll give you my thoughts on the matter. I've found that "enlightenment" generally refers to one of two things: a flash of knowledge and/or understanding that can happen more than once and generally confers esoteric knowledge or the state of "no more learning", that of becoming divine (Becoming a Buddha is a good example, though there are others that fit this definition) The first definition is what people generally use when talking casually, while the second definition is what is used to define a "teacher" of sorts. The more famous examples of the second definition are most of the people who have founded various religions (Jesus, Abraham, Muhammed, Buddha, etc.), though there are plenty of them that have chosen not to found a movement like that. In both cases, I find the easiest way to tell if someone has such an attainment is through gut feeling. If they feel genuine, then you must check their claims against reality. If they have truly gained knowledge from some sort of enlightenment, then that knowledge should be true. Crosscheck their claims against other unrelated sources; check into the meat of what they say and do. This includes claims of gods, demons, "unseen" power, etc. It's important to remember that if someone claims that they can do something, you need to see evidence of it before you believe them. Oftentimes, the very act of making such a claim is counterproductive to self-progress (it feeds ego), so most "enlightened" folks end up with the label without ever claiming themselves as such. One of the biggest red flags in a teacher is the teacher themselves claiming enlightenment, as the only reason an enlightened being would do so is to benefit others (which most of the claims made nowadays certainly would not). Most of my knowledge on this comes from a combination of experience, academic practices, and my own realizations through practice. I would argue that it is of the utmost importance for each and every one of us to attempt to discern truth from falsehood on our own, without trusting everything another says. Afterall, there are seven billion of us on this planet; how many of us do you think are truly that attained? Odds are, you'll be lucky to come across someone who has that sort of attainment in this lifetime. Edit: One thing to note with the second type of enlightenment I mentioned is that such a being would not desire, and would not truly anger. The DDJ describes the way such a being would exist, but it wouldn't be because they are attempting to follow the DDJ. They simply become that way naturally, as a result of the "enlightenment". Usually, such a being would shy away from money, politics, sexual interactions, and other desire-based activities. While they would do what is needed for survival, they would not generally save in excess, and would not actively seek out more than what they need. Thus, if they were to teach, the majority of it would likely be for free, and probably not labeled as "teaching". If you are familiar with the way that the MCO manifests, it is similar in methods. The "enlightenment" is simply a river filling a trench. Without the pathway dug ahead of time, the water would spill everywhere. Without the water, the trench would simply be a trench. But when the conditions combine, it creates "enlightenment".

If you were truly enlightened, you would not claim it on a forum. Instead, people would simply be able to tell that you were enlightened without you attempting to prove or disprove it. By making this post you have proven your claim wrong, which is quite laughable in my humble opinion.

I think that most of our rules and laws generally are rather random, and rather inconsequential. Most of these are due to biases of pathetic people spreading like a plague and eventually getting put into law. That said, there's a line that I think is quite important to draw when it comes to matters that are life and death. For things such as vaccinations, not getting one could literally cause deaths other than your own to happen, so it should indeed be illegal to refuse (unless you have medical reason not to. Religious reason be damned.) The same should be said of acting risky. We arrest drunk drivers because they endanger the lives of others with their reckless behavior. We should do the same to those who actively spread viruses. A question I'd like to posit: Getting the virus is likely to be incredibly harmful or lethal. With that in mind, what difference is there between spreading the virus through reckless action compared with cutting someone while swinging a sword recklessly? I would argue that both are the same action in motive and effect, so should be treated the same. If I were to shoot someone, I wouldn't be able to get off scot free by claiming "I don't believe guns can hurt people!", so why should we care if delusional fools don't "believe" in a real virus? Lock them up and let them figure it out for themselves while not endangering the rest of us.

In all seriousness, I feel that the problem in this conversation lies in the sources used. "Documentaries" are not valid sources, as they are meant to entertain with a flavor of information, rather than to provide actual information. This means that the people making said documentaries have motive and reason to alter what information is portrayed in order to make it more 'entertaining' at the cost of accuracy of information. News sites of any sort are generally not valid sources, as they have motive and reason (and history of doing so) to exaggerate or fabricate their information. More over-the-top news means more clicks for them, and the more clicks they get, the more money they get. Naturally, this applies to social media (Facebook, instagram, friend circles, etc.) and YouTube as well. When doing research on this sort of topic, it would be important to use academic sources if possible, or if not possible, to use sources that are unbiased as possible. Here is a decent definition of an academic source: https://www.library.illinois.edu/ugl/howdoi/scholarly/ and here is a decent list of the biases of news sites: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings The more biased a site is politically, the less accurate their information usually is (as they are more likely to attempt to frame things to make their favored party look better, thus providing motive for falsifying information). This naturally applies to both left-wing and right-wing sites. In conclusion, especially if news or information is "shocking", it is important to ask oneself if the information source has motive to make it shocking, and if they do have motive, look for opposing sources and take the information with a grain of salt.

As one with quite a bit of faith in my own abilities, as well as my survivability of most diseases, I would say that this view is indisputably foolish and potentially dangerous. I am not the person that getting the vaccine would save, rather, my elderly mother or grandmother would be. My friends who are not as fortunate or healthy as I would be the ones saved by this vaccine. We never eradicated smallpox or polio with natural remedies. Natural remedies have their place, and they can be incredibly helpful, but they are not the tool for this particular job. As for strengthening one's immune system, that precisely is what a vaccine does. It gives you specific immunity against a specific illness, and can be used to create herd immunity to prevent said illness from spreading to the young, immunocompromised, or elderly. With that little spiel out of the way, there is one particular caution that I can see sense in with this vaccine: the quality of the vaccine itself. I will openly admit that I am not a medically trained doctor, nor am I an accredited scientist in a field working on vaccine development. I don't know how long vaccines usually stay in development, so it's fair to be cautious about potentially rushed jobs. That said, the yearly flu vaccine has to be remade each year to account for new potential strains of said flu, so I can certainly see a competent vaccine being made within the time we have had with C19. As far as I'm concerned with what I have seen so far (emphasis on "so far"), I would get the vaccine as soon as it's available to me. I think that those working in high risk fields need it first, followed by high risk individuals, so it should still be awhile before it becomes available to me, but I see this as the way we get out of this pandemic. We're incredibly fortunate that such a vaccine has already been developed and I feel that we should be much more thankful for it than we are.