Paradoxal

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.

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

Almost everything we do effects other people.  As a society we´ve decided that heroin use and driving without a seatbelt are illegal.  Dominos pizza and bungee jumping, permitted.  The lines seem somewhat random to me.

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. 

1 hour ago, RiverSnake said:

I am more in favor of natural remedies (Vitamin D, Zinc...etc) and strengthening ones immune system (foods, fasting, exercise....etc) than hastily developed vaccines. 

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.

3 minutes ago, Rara said:

Would you say fajin is more appropriate for the strike? I get using pushing for demonstration purposes, but any skilled fighter won't bother pushing you.

If you can push someone, you can opt to land a number of other, more devastating hits instead. Situational, I would assume. 

12 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

I still see this attitude when speaking to some evangelicals today. If it doesn't line up with what they think is proper they call it evil and satanic.

I find it rather sad, but it's the result of brainwashing from childhood. The ones who started these beliefs had some serious political motives and didn't actually believe it themselves, but after generations said motives were lost and all that was left was a traditional way to teach your children. I have relatives that think this still and it does make talking to them feel like a minefield. 

A lot of magical traditions include cultivation methods, though, the methods within don't seem to be up to snuff either. I don't know for sure, but I would wager it was due to the witch hunting practices of the church. Anyone who attempted to cross church territory (spirituality) would be hunted down and killed, and they would do their best to make sure that any knowledge that didn't fit the dogma would be lost. Buddhism and Hinduism are powerful, but I'm not aware of a central entity within them instigating a specific search and destroy mission for competing knowledge; though, I could be simply unaware! Nonetheless, it's the effect of a monopoly, a monopoly in religion. 

1 hour ago, freeform said:

Slightly different rules for cultivators - otherwise it’s generally sound advice  

Would you be willing to go into detail on this? It's something that I'd love to learn about as someone still fairly fresh on the cultivation path.

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

There is no "internal kung fu" that works in a fight. Xu Xiadong is proving it by defeating big internal masters with no effort at all

You clearly misunderstand the significance of "internal" or "external" methods, and that is fine; it's a common misunderstanding, afterall. "External" methods are more commonly used in MMA, and these can include lifting weights, punching boards, etc. "Internal" methods simply are another tool of building ability, much like lifting weights or punching hard objects to strengthen the fists. While internal methods *can* lead to much more fulfilling things compared to fighting, they do not make a fighter without training specifically designed to produce a fighter. You can lift weights for years, but never develop the ability to punch hard or take a hard punch, let alone the strategy, visual acuity, reflexes, or conditioning required to step in a ring; internal training is much the same, it's simply a tool in the toolbox. You still require reflex training, body conditioning, and practice against a live opponent, one that will hit back and take a hit. 

I practice a system that is a mix of internal and external training, and I find it to be quite useful in a fight (and I have used it multiple times to resolve situations on the street). That said, I do not find it to *only* be useful in a fight, and that is not the point of learning a martial art in the first place. If I solely wanted to learn how to defend myself, I would carry a gun. Only around 10 hours of training required maximum, and it can get you through most sticky situations where I live. Much less time needs to be spent, and much less overall money and effort required for the classes. If I wanted to learn how to fight effectively barehanded, I would only need to learn three hand movements at max, with four leg movements at max. This is how many combat sports are taught, and it is why you don't exactly see many variations of strikes in these sports despite the wide variety of options out there. You only need to be able to attack from straight or round with both arms and legs, and be able to get in and out of range. What creates a strong fighter is an understanding of how to apply said movements, not what specific movements they subscribe to (though, a more efficient system can certainly help). 

In addition, I don't know your personal experience with fighting, but I think it worthy to mention the sheer physical fitness of anyone getting into the ring professionally. A professional fighter is going to be extremely fit; much more fit than most who are professional teachers (though, some said fighters retain that fitness even after retirement, so there are teachers who are indeed at that level still). I haven't seen the "big internal masters" being beaten, but I would question if they are kitted out to fight to begin with? Throwing a kitten into a pit with a hungry lion would hardly be a good way to judge the merits of various species of feline, no? 

When looking into it, *if* that stick was actually the method of the curse, it is important to look at the type of wood (including whether it was a branch or part of the trunk), the direction that the hairs are wrapped (clockwise, counterclockwise, mixed, what ratio, what length, etc.), and the time/day it was left there (approximately). I'm not versed in this sort of magic, but I know that those small details matter quite a bit. Since it was wrapped with your hair, you may have been the target rather than him, but again, I don't know enough to say for sure; they could have been targeting him using you as a relay.

Here's hoping you find an answer.

3 hours ago, helpfuldemon said:

Have you tried smoking pot?

Even if this was a joke, I would like to throw in that smoking pot *will* cause problems with meditation, and will literally never help someone get closer to mastery of this. It re-contaminates the system that meditation works on decontaminating, thus undoing your effort. 

11 hours ago, Jadespear said:

time isn't an illusion in the literal sense, it exists...

Something being an illusion does not mean that it does not exist. 

11 hours ago, Jadespear said:

time gives shape to everything.

That is only the way it appears on the surface. By looking a little deeper, you may see a different picture entirely.

11 hours ago, Jadespear said:

I challenge you to expand on the illusory aspect you claim, while using the knowledge you have, not what you read.

How can I describe to a blind man what it is like to see? I describe what I see myself, and yet it is taken as a fantasy! How laughable indeed! It would be worth looking into Plato's Allegory of the Cave, friend! I believe that it can describe this better than I would on a forum post, but unfortunately, that in itself is simply "what you read"! 

I think you're uncomfortable looking past the cover of the book, and that is fine. It's perfectly natural to want to stop at the brink of the unknown, and come back with the experience of coming close to it, but it is quite rewarding to take that one extra step in. As for time itself, look at dream time. Look at the differences in how we "experience" life day-to-day, as the years go by. A year for a child feels like an eternity, and yet a year for an adult feels like nothing at all! A minute of anticipation lasts much longer than ten minutes of fun, and yet funtime is much longer objectively! Some dreams can last years while only taking an hour to conjure, and some martial artists can enter a time-free state via focus. Time is something entirely irrelevant to experience, and yet we always attempt to place our experiences in time itself. 

1 minute ago, Nungali said:

Wanker has similar meanings and overtones to American pejoratives like jerk or jerk-off.^[4] More generally, wanker can carry suggestions of egotistical and self-indulgent behaviour and this is the dominant meaning in Australia and New Zealand.^[5]

So THAT's what "Wanko Soba" is named for!

Is it not entertaining to see people take a simple theory personally?

I don't know if your theory is correct, @dmattwads, but I find the gut response of many to be quite an amusing example of lack of self awareness. That said, I don't think it's *just* kidney jing deficiency that causes it. It's likely a combination of factors, and not all "trolls" do so for the same reason. Nungali, for instance, "trolls" in a helpful way. He makes fun of others in an attempt to let them see the folly of their ways, almost like a mischievous fae. This sort of thing is often referred to as "trolling", but I very much doubt it is what you are referring to as "trolling". Why not use a more specific definition of the behavior you're referring to?

I have read that White tiger has a habit of bringing out hard-to-control anger when clearing the meridians, but I do not know if it is true or not. It would be something I suggest looking into if you're looking at picking it up.

2 hours ago, dmattwads said:

Why is it that differing view are seen so often as wrong rather than simply an alternative perspective about basically the same thing?

This is because humans are specialized in exclusion. We exclude things that we are not familiar with because they are potential risks. This is how we survived before we were "civilized", and it is also what leads to the tribal mentality. It's simple to see this trait in pretty much every other animal out there as well; if it's not taught to be accepting of something, it will view it with suspicion. If you don't know what a plant is, would you eat it? What if your parents raised you with that plant in your diet? It's that sort of thing.

As said trait applies to spirituality and ideas, along with more physical aspects of life, even the most pure ideologies would eventually develop sections that believe it to be the only thing out there. Now, it can be taught that everyone has a valid opinion, but one person who believes that their opinion is the only valid opinion can easily ruin that. Such a development easily happens when the teachings are taught by those who do not understand them, such as many of the current and past church officials (Look at how it was taught during the middle ages, and compare it what the book actually says). In cases such as these, said people use the "My view is the only right view!" as a power move, to keep them at the top and others below them.

Nonetheless, I find it easiest to view this as part of a cycle. A "religion" is born when one "enlightened" individual (not exactly a buddha per se, but more like someone with some insight into what's beyond) decides to teach disciples, and those disciples decide to teach the message to others. Eventually, the teachings spread outside of what was originally taught, and those teaching no longer understand the teachings. Once this happens, corruption strikes, and the downfall of the religion begins. During the downfall of a religion, a new individual is born and starts a new religion, which continues the cycle. If we view the different bits of Christianity (Roman Catholic, Calvinist, Lutheran, Protestant, etc.), Judaism, Islam, and the Pagan religions of the Romans and Greeks, and look at the overall history, we begin to see something of a pattern. When a religion falls, it doesn't always disappear, but its ability to recruit and the peoples' trust in it lowers. 

That's my take on it, anyway. I'd love to hear other peoples' opinions as well, as this is something I've been concerned about as well!

If you are questioning where qi comes from, I would say that it's not from this particular plane of existence, and thus would not be subject to our laws of physics. When approaching this subject, it would be more appropriate to use eastern science (think yin/yang as a measuring stick) compared to western science (think a device as a measuring stick). This isn't something I've gone too in-depth in myself, but all the explanations for qi that I have heard from people trying to make it understandable from a western scientific perspective were easily debunked. 

As for the idea that qi is plasma, the biggest issue I have with it is that plasma does not have a way to create all of the same phenomena that qi can create (the biggest one I can think of is body reinforcement, which I can't see a good way to accomplish with plasma as I understand it). That said, it would be rather nice if western science eventually reached an understanding of qi, but I don't think that will happen for as long as our measuring sticks are physical in nature. 

6 minutes ago, old3bob said:

what are your  motives and or reasons for the things you speak of doing to contact "higher forces".

I found these things out by experimenting with what works best for me. Some were inspired by other rules I've heard of, but I personally tested what worked and what didn't. My initial motive in contacting said beings was a combination of curiosity and malice, as I did not like the idea of there being anything that could affect me without me seeing it. In addition to said motives, curiosity about who I am, what this world is, and why we're here were also certainly motivating midway through. Now, it's mostly a relationship of teacher and student, where I learn what I can from who I can. 

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

ok, but what is your motive or reason for reception and as related to purity, if you don't mind me asking?

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Could you rephrase that? 

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

Yes there are two kinds of knowledge  

The transactional knowledge of the transactional reality -- that's stuff one can learn in schools, colleges, by experience etc. In the Vedantic tradition we call this "paroksha" jnana. This includes scriptural knowledge as well. 

There is another kind of knowledge, which is of the absolute reality -- this we call aparoksha jnana -- This can only be known in an instant, via a flash of direct apperception (some teachers might say, a flash of intuition). The Zen tradition would call it "Satori". 

You have just immensely helped me by saying this. I've never really known what to call it, but I now have a name for it. "Satori"? Do you know of other systems that have names for this as well?

11 hours ago, EFreethought said:

For some reason, the formatting in my reply to Paradoxal was messed up. To repeat: How do you contact these beings? Do you do it through some form of meditation/astral projection? Or does it happen spontaneously? Or some combination?

I'm still unable to do a full astral projection (as in completely leaving the body), but it does depend. Sometimes, I will do a mental projection (which is where I have somewhat split consciousness, as in I still have awareness of my body, but I can see, hear, and feel things in the astral), sometimes they decide to visit me and I feel a presence of sorts, which I then check via mental projection, and sometimes I call out to them by mentally saying their name with intention to call out to them. The most common way I interact now is the latter, but that only gets do-able once you are able to completely empty your mind of thoughts and keep it that way. I find that if your mind isn't completely empty, it's extremely hard to tell the difference between stray thoughts and the responses of said beings. Sometimes, I have to repeat questions multiple times to get a reliable answer. 

9 hours ago, old3bob said:

the more concentrated the honesty, sincerity and need of the signal sent then the more likely that signal will be answered...for the law of the universe works to reach out to the hand that reaches for it. (then again there is that saying,  "be careful what you ask for" and also "to whom much is given much is expected".  

Tying in, I find the things that improve my receptiveness to such messages include "purity", as in not being sexually active for a time, having a full amount of qi, and having entirely unaffected consciousness (no caffeine, no alcohol, no drugs). Sometimes though, I will get either a garbled answer or a simple "I'm not allowed to tell you that yet".

2 minutes ago, dmattwads said:

From a TCM POV schizophrenia is treatable but it's not easy, and does not resolve quickly. It also takes a lot of treatments.

Then it would likely be best for him to go get some TCM treatment, as western medicine does not possess a permanent cure (if I am understanding you correctly to mean that it has a cure!).

1 hour ago, dmattwads said:

I would be interested to hear your take on demons and demonic possession?

I've had a few run-ins with demons and demonic possession, but none of them were similar to what you'd see in the movies. At most, I've seen people lose memories of events, have someone else controlling their body, and/or going animalistic. Usually, however, what ends up happening is said victims hear sounds following them (such as footsteps, dragging chains, breathing, etc.), they develop unusual interests (One such person was possessed by an incubus; they heard dragging chains behind them at random, developed an unusual sex drive, and was always tired), or have general fatigue. I've never come across one that starts levitating or something of that sort, though I won't dismiss the possibility. The difference between possession and mental illness lies in the level of energetics involved; usually, it's easy to tell at a glance based on the feel of the person involved. It's similar to the feeling when you meet a highly developed person, except inverse. 

58 minutes ago, helpfuldemon said:

Ive since battled schizophrenia and feel demonically possessed.  

Running into my previous statement, there's a difference between being possessed and being mentally ill. Your energy feels like that of schizophrenia, though, of course, I can't give you an official diagnosis. I would seriously suggest looking into methods of correcting or compensating for your system as compared to potential exorcisms. That said, if you are possessed, it would not surprise me given the interests you've shown, but I feel like the root of your issue lies elsewhere. 

Another important thing to note is that as much as I dislike psychiatric medicines, they do provide a perfect bandaid for some issues that are hard to fully fix. I'm not qualified to help you with this, but what I'm saying is from experience with others who had schizophrenia, combined with my own experiences with the US mental health system. I don't know enough about TCM to know if it can help you better than western medicine, but I would suggest looking for potential solutions before focusing on the demonic aspect.