Sahaja

The young man feels his strength and believes it will never end. The old man feels his end but remembers his strength. The sage just listens and smiles to himself.

In the end dust is dust, whether you are a king or pauper, and greatness is a long forgotten dream.

Every dead bird I ever saw was covered in ants.

Perhaps this is because the ant knows in the end it will eat the bird when it stops flying.

Upon reflection I find this whole focus on giving someone an electric shock as the ultimate criterion for measuring the value of a system as problematic. I do think there is a point where it’s useful for the practitioner to learn to emit qi so they can see its physical effects on something outside of their body but I see this as more of a private affair for them to understand the process and see a physical external manifestation of what they are experiencing internally. Something to make it more real to the practitioner if they so choose. . Not as something to show the world how smart and talented they are or how wonderful their system is. Also, for teachers, learning to share their qi with a student to help them develop is also important but again this is better done in a low key fashion so as not to create unnecessary karma. There are some medical applications as well though there are health risks that accompany them that shouldn’t be ignored. When I see all the mania generated by the mo pai madness (or by related things like use of empty force) it doesn’t seem mentally healthy to me. Feels more like an adolescent response to feelings of uncertainty and doubt in themselves than in self cultivation. I think practices that generate a Mona Lisa smile and a calm abiding are more useful in life and don't carry as much ego baggage . Traditionally powers were expected to arise more as a test of one’s character and to challenge their focus on their sadhana rather than something that was the primary goal. I think if we ignore this traditional view there can be unnecessary unhelpful consequences that result in our having to learn this lesson again. sorry - I guess this makes me sound like someone quite archaic in their views but just wanted to give another view to this. Thanks for listening to my rant.

One thing I experienced with it directly was its blood thinning qualities. A few years back I was getting a shot and there was a lot of blood. The nurse thought I’d take aspirin before hand and I said no. Later I realized it was likely the turmeric I was taking at my wife’s suggestion to reduce inflammation. Generally they counsel to stop taking it before surgery for this reason. Difficult to say how it worked on inflammation as this is less self evident than bleeding though I still take it sometimes.

Interesting that he says there is a the large degree of overlaps/commonalities of the three systems. I think that is a good thing and not really surprising to me. I also agree with him that fa qi is a natural outcome of the process - though I’m not sure I view it as being as important as he does. However, i think the science community may not recognize his outcome as the experiment design of one person doing all three simultaneously is problematic. . I also think the siddhis he emotionally refers to including are a bit more advanced than just doing fa qi. Not many people I’ve heard of doing anima (Become smaller than atom) , mahima (become as large as the universe) garima (becoming infinitely heavy) etc. Might be a big ask for a neigong program to produce these in the timeframe provided. . Not sure I’d want them if they could! Though the siddhi prapti does sound tempting.

It is interesting how in Saiva Tantra (Abhinavagupta ‘s upayas ), Nath Yoga(Gorakhnath), Daoism (liu yiming & many others) and probably in Buddhism though I don’t have a specific reference in mind, there are similar messages to Tseng Lao Wengs noted above. Actually if you put Gorakhnath’s comments from the Siddha Siddhanti Paddhati along side Tesng’s it’s quite amazing how they have a similar flavor given their different geographical and tradition origins - though I would say Gorakhnath’s are even more thorough in their dismissal of methods and even traditions. Certainly they point to a truth that wisdom/liberation are beyond specific methods and that it’s an error to conflate the two. However, I personally think the audience was more disciples who had put in the work on the methods, rituals and we’re proud of the accoutrements of their tradition. Likely they were at the point in their sadhana (conditions were in place from using these tools to a sufficient degree)where they needed to leave these behind as they had changed from tools to burdens. Lots of metaphors apply, like leaving the boat behind after you use it to cross to the other shore (rather than continuing to carry it) However, I don’t think it’s really intended as a specific guide for beginners or even intermediate level students. . ‘No method” is still a method and like all methods require conditions to already be in place for it to be effective which it’s unlikely beginners would have. In my experience one usually starts out with quite overt crude even aggressive methods that evolve as you evolve into subtler and subtler methods as your ability to connect with the subtle builds. if you try advanced techniques before you are ready (conditions are place) nothing happens - or the nothing changes into a delusion of something. Abhinavagupta had a suggestion on this - start with the highest method/upaya (no method ) to see if it works for you. If it doesn’t you can work your way down through the methods/upayas to more grosser ones to find the level that fits where you are. Now the caveat I’d give here is that he was pretty much born into a very advanced state. When I read him I get a little bit of the “ivory tower” flavor because of his rarified starting point. So his advice while logical may need to be taken with a grain of salt as I think it lacked some real world personal testing.

I don’t really have a belief in qi. I do have a daily physical interaction with it like I have an interaction with my coffee table in my living room. To say I have a belief in qi would be like saying I have a belief in my coffee table. Its physical existence is self evident through my direct experience making whether I have a belief in it irrelevant. .The difference is I work on my connection with qi whereas I take my coffee table for granted and don’t give it much attention. . Because I work on that experience with qi the experience deepens and changes. I don’t have much expectation for specific outcomes but I am pleasantly surprised when i see changes or the experience deepens. Regardless I find it a pleasant challenge to work with. I am told it can take you quite far in connecting with spirit or the divine or whatever you want to call it. Rather than believing in this I think it is healthier to just keep going and to continue to observe what arises and be grateful for the experience.

Sorry for your loss Steve. Hope that over time you find healing. I lost my brother earlier this year and have been learning much about grief. Best wishes and good healing to you.

I used the term substances in my original post to reflect my understanding that there are a number stages (like 9 or 10) that circulate different “things” - perhaps one could say different qualities and mixtures of qi and Jing. Most of this is way, way beyond my level and the process takes place over many years. I also understand that there are different approaches to this that evolved separately with some not using this term. My limited understanding is that it arises on its own - sometimes completely - sometimes with some small intention just before it circulates (attention, mudra etc to build pressure and connect ren & du). However even when intention is used, 90% of the circulation is on its own with you not consciously or physically doing it - with ldt and other points acting independently of your conscious physical control to move it through. In my limited experience sometimes the pressure inside is very strong, other times it’s more just a feeling of energy circling that is still physically strong enough to move/sway your torso. It’s pressure, independence from conscious control, independence from the breath and its other physical effects makes it’s clear to me that it is very different than tracing channels intentionally with awareness and the breath based on my experience with using that channel tracing/breath technique in yoga in the past. I don’t generally worry too much about what qi is because the people that developed these practices viewed it as everything (it existed undifferentiated before the division into yin and yang and the 10,000 things). They also said when you name things you limit and distort them which is not particularly helpful from a cultivation perspective that is based primarily on listening and release. Having said that it is nice to learn about the different qualities of these different stages so you have an idea where you are in the process. However I think it’s better to have the experience first and later get the explanation for obvious reasons. This requires self control of the intellect that wants to ask a 1000 questions in an effort to be in control of the process that only really works (or at least works better) when you don’t try to control it. It also requires one to have trust in the guide and have one worthy of that trust.. Ultimately these processes are designed to take one beyond the intellect so knowing everything intellectually isn’t that helpful and being too much in the head can be a barrier.

“all phenomena, including ourselves, exist and arise in dependence upon other factors rather than in isolation” perhaps it’s based on ignorance, but I think it still describes a definition of being pretty well though not a fixed one I agree samkhya is more fixed in its definitions (dualistic and based on enumeration/counting.), but isn’t our mixing of purusa and prakriti to define our being a form of ignorance that samkhya seeks to solve? Granted being just a purusa may be somewhat more defined than being in nirvana but not by much. saiva tantra while using the tattva system like samkhya adds a creative deity to the mix and potential for nondual experience combining both purusa and Prakriti , like Buddhism it views our human perspective on being as based in ignorance because our true nature as siva is hidden. Realization of who we really are (siva) is it’s counterpart to Buddhist enlightenment. So seems quite similar. I have a feeling that many religious philosophies are based on our view of being as flawed in some way and their mission is to correct it. It’s also likely their definition of what true being in the emancipated state is somewhat vague for lack of concepts to describe it. If you realize your siva nature, among other things, space and time no longer apply - a bit hard to describe that.

I think Buddha did have an ontology in his views that was based on dependent origin and the ideas that grew out of that (no self, impermanence, the skandas). His view on dependent origin can be viewed as a middle ontological ground between the eternalists (eternal self or soul) and anhilationists (everything ends at death). Above all though I think he wanted to be practical and provide useful practical ideas to help people more than create a new rigidly defined philosophy. In this regard I think his view of modern science would be to accommodate from it that which was useful to people while warning of its behavioral traps. While there was a clear emphasis on cultivation of the mind while viewing the body as secondary in importance and somewhat problematic, I find it quite interesting that hidden in Buddha’s iconography (mudras used, sitting next to a tree, etc) one finds a number of very powerful energetic practices that directly affect the body’s qi, Jing, Dan tian, channels and various circulations. These are so specific and have such specific subtle body effects integral to its cultivation that it seems quite possible that someone along the Buddhist line didn’t have a problem with using these subtle substances to support their sadhana regardless of their materiality or lack thereof or the names used to describe them. Perhaps they just found them useful .

However to “not do” one usually must start with some kind of doing to create the conditions for “not doing” to naturally arise. I think there is a natural progression in qi based practices to move from doing to not doing as one progresses in capability and builds qi. However without the right conditions in place (like sufficient qi, open channels, Dan tian formed, ability to stabilize alert awareness, etc) doing nothing will likely result in nothing. I also think in reality it’s a more of a scale rather than a binary outcome. Close counts.

When areas/points open up they certainly can behave like the lower Dan tian, physically expanding & contracting like pumps (even turning) on their own when bathed in awareness. I can see where this causes confusion. I think the lower and middle Dan tian are more central to the process of gathering, circulating and filling hence the emphasis on them. The physical sensation of their activity can also be a little stronger so this role is easier to perceive.