steve

Thank you for making that last point. Just because we had to invent the idea of dark matter to account for observations that our present theoretical framework cannot explain, does not mean dark matter actually exists. it may simply be that our theoretical framework is missing something important. That said there is some recent evidence that may further strengthen the idea of the existence of dark matter. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/11/251129053349.htm

IMO, an accurate definition of Qi is certainly not the English word energy, particularly as that word is loosely used in non-scientific contexts. Qi is far more fundamental and relational/contextual than what is meant by the English word energy, even ATP related energy, and IMO the idea of storing, building, and blocking Qi, even the idea of feeling Qi can be very misleading, even an obstacle. My Daoist teacher, who was Chinese, was just like you describe - not overly concerned with things like translations and definitions of words and concepts. For him, any time we spent reading and studying concepts was wasted time we could have devoted to experiential practice. What makes you say "nobody is familiar with" ATP energy? It is a very basic concept in biochemistry and I suspect many of us here are quite familiar with it. There was a time that I had it memorized down to each chemical formula but I let that go about 40 years ago. While I do understand and appreciate your point related to the important association between "ATP energy" and Qi, I would disagree with defining Qi solely as energy, even that generated through the TCA cycle. I think that is too reductive and does not account for the many different contextual associations with 氣 or 炁 both in neidan and more general usage.

I was simply quoting Cobie. My agreement referred to my experience that as we get deeper and closer to what it means to be human, the fewer differences we are likely to find among ourselves. This can be seen on multiple levels - physical, emotional, psychological, energetic, metaphysical, etc...

I agree there is no difference at the core. There are meaningful differences on the way there, such as in language construction and conceptualization, not to mention cultural context. At least that’s been my experience. This is one reason why it’s so helpful to have friends who are native speakers when learning the language.

In a similar vein to the East-West dichotomy in understanding, conceptualization, and language discussed in the article above on Qi; I just stumbled across this quotation from Joseph Campbell that describes this fundamental difference in religious/spiritual life. “God and Buddhas in the Orient are not final terms like Yahweh, the Trinity, or Allah, in the West - but point beyond themselves to that ineffable being, consciousness, and rapture that is the All in all of us. And in their worship, the ultimate aim is to effect in the devotee a psychological transfiguration through a shift of his plane of vision from the passing to the enduring, through which he may come finally to realize in experience (not simply as an act of faith) that he is identical with that before which he bows." -Joseph Campbell Of course there are exceptions on both sides, but the quotation rings true in my personal experience with Eastern and Western religions and related practices and rituals.

I liked how the article pointed out fundamental differences in Eastern and. Western language and ontology and its effect on our conceptualization and understanding of Qi. I also like how it emphasized the contextual and relational nature of Qi which makes it a bit difficult to define it in Western terms as a precise quantity or substance.

I found this article on Qi to be interesting. Can't say I agree with everything it says but some here may appreciate it. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10874819/ Despite its growing utility I would urge some caution in relying too heavily on AI to explain neidan, among other things, regardless of language. AI does not have the power of human discernment, something I consider important when it comes to meaningful understanding.

Too general a question

Good question, evidence suggests positive reinforcement is more effective than negative in many cases. For me, somewhat, depending on specifics. For others, very easy.

In my mind, this is a different issue. This example is more related to rules and consequences. The master of a lineage does not need to feel forgiveness for the precept-breaker, they need to enforce the rules in order to preserve the tradition or insure optimal training. I can forgive someone and still expect them to be appropriately punished. The master can feel genuine compassion and forgiveness and still exact punishment in order to teach a lesson. The forgiveness is in my heart, the punishment is an attempt to modify behavior, two very different things for me.

Another important consideration here applies to those of us following spiritual paths like Bon, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, and so on. Forgiveness and repentance are associated with the sense of a finite and persistent self. If we are able to release ourselves from the captivity of that limited idea of self, forgiveness and repentance are spontaneous and effortless. The degree to which we feel wronged, or that we have wronged, is the degree to which we remain attached to a finite sense of self. So the process of releasing and opening into the present moment, free of the baggage of expectations and judgement, naturally leads to forgiveness that is not dependent on repentance and to contrition that is not dependent on forgiveness. These are all must my own personal musings and I don't suggest or expect that my approach will work for others. Just sharing where I'm at on my journey, fwiw.

Forgiveness, for me, is a personal and private act of releasing the pain and bitterness of perceived offense. It has little to do with anyone else or their choices. It allows me to diminish my own burden, if genuine. Repentance or contrition is also a personal and private act of releasing the burden of having offended myself or others. It allows me to diminish my own burden, if genuine. If I depend on someone else’s repentance to consider forgiveness, or vice versa, I am only harming myself, no one else, withholding the possibility of healing and growth. My sustained experience of offense and the associated stress only harms me, it does nothing to my offender. Maya Angelou has some beautiful statements and poetry about the subject. The film Rubaru Roshni is a beautiful and touching film about forgiveness, highly recommended.

https://www.netflix.com/title/81243992

Netflix

The other problem is that this deluded mindset can be a source of abusive behavior. There is a dzogchen saying that states 'the view should be as broad as the sky but the conduct as fine as barley powder.' When behavior comes from a genuine connection to the source, there is little or no possibility of abusive behavior. When it comes from the deluded mind, bad actors misbehave. These are some of the reasons why the dzogchen path was kept so secretive for so long, there is a higher potential for misunderstanding, and related abuse, than with other paths.

It's OK To Not Be OK is one of my favorite Korean dramas, highly recommended!

This reminds me of a favorite pith instruction from Anthony Demello - 'Pleasant experiences make life delightful, painful experiences are opportunities for growth.'

I love this angle! I appreciate the orthodox version but always enjoy finding connections between traditions. For me the meaning is not in the text, it’s in the reader.

Did you mean to say ‘does not’?

The dzogchen path that I follow is one that is guilty of using such terminology. Dzogchen literally means great (chen) perfection (dzog). As Keith suggests, to the Western ear a more palatable and equally valid translation would be great completion. In this context, perfect or complete does not imply a value judgement from the human perspective. It is more a recognition of the spontaneous presence of all enlightened qualities in our natural mind, always present and awaiting discovery. It suggests that we don't need to add or subtract anything or change anything to have access to unlimited potential for enlightened activity. We simply need to be open and unimpeded by our tendency to "collapse the wave function" (to borrow some quantum mechanics language); by our tendency to over-identify with a limited sense of "me" that excludes so many possibilities. For me this has strong parallels in Daoism, a few examples being concepts like ziran and wuwei, as well as the idea that Heaven, Earth, and the sage not being humane/benevolent but regarding people as straw dogs. In attending many dzogchen retreats over the past decade or so, this is one of the areas that causes the most consternation and frustration among developing practitioners. Of course there are many terrible things in the world, people suffer greatly and this is absolutely acknowledged in dzogchen and serves as the very basis and purpose for engaging in practice - namely, to liberate one's own being in order to benefit others. From the perspective of the samsaric being, the world can be a very tough, unforgiving, and dangerous place. From the absolute perspective, everything that arises is simply a function of the workings of karma and dependent origination. There is a sense of perfection or completeness in terms of the fact that if anything is changed, everything else changes. Nothing can be added or taken away or things would not be as they are. In this sense the whole is perfect and complete. I wonder if there is a parallel in Hindu systems relative to the inherent perfection/completeness of Brahman relative to the incompleteness and imperfection of maya... or something like that?

One way to think about it is in distinguishing the concept of reincarnation from rebirth. Reincarnation implies a permanent, self-sustaining entity, atman, that transmigrates from one incarnation to another. Rebirth implies the coalescence of mental and physical aggregates, which arise as a result of karma and dependent origination, in a new form in the absence of an eternal soul. I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong by any means, both are simply attempts to capture mystery in concepts and words. I think rebirth is closer to what is described in Buddhism and reincarnation in Hindu systems. In terms of the soul, I can't say that I have a personal take per se but I do resonate with the Bönpo concept of "bla" which is the closest thing in the system to the Western idea of soul. Truth is, it is not equivalent to soul but an interesting take on the basic idea. If you have the time and patience, this video does a nice job of exploring it -

not from beyond or apart from, that's not what is meant. the mind's nature is open and clear, the mind refers to all of the contents, perceptions, formations, activities, etc... here's a brief excerpt from a Bön teaching that helps to distinguish - As for recognizing the mind and the nature of mind: Free of thoughts, Becoming the base-of-all, Neutral, Possessing the potential to arise as anything without ceasing - These four. The base-of-all is the nature of mind. Recollected and aware, Able to arise as anything whatsoever, Liberated when released, If allowed to settle, it mixes [with the base-of-all] - These four. The intellect is the mind. The method is that you hear this teaching, try to understand the meaning as best you can, then actualize this understanding in practice, traditionally in an extended and isolated retreat. Then the teacher checks your understanding and corrects or guides as needed. mind is not the ultimate self in these teachings probably, it's a tough subject to casually talk about, the vast majority of this process of "introduction to the nature of mind" is experiential practice, the metaphors, similes, examples, and descriptions are cognitive tools to help guide and correct when needed. yes agree, I'll stop here

This is perhaps the most important discernment in dzogchen. What is the mind, what is its nature or essence, and how are the two distinguished and how do they relate to the self and ultimate reality? The ways of teaching this can be complicated because different people require different things to "get it." It's not a conceptual or intellectual definition because that is still the territory of the mind, which generally considers itself the only tool available for "understanding," not yet trusting anything outside of its realm, and yet not appreciating its own limitations when considering that which may be beyond its grasp. So there are several methods, often relying on simile and metaphor as well as meditative methods. This might be a topic for a different thread.

And another soul that needed to get a little crazy!

My favorite -