forestofemptiness

For online Buddhist learning, I would recommend: https://learning.tergar.org There are two programs: one called the Joy of Living that teaches concentration and insight meditation with a specific Vajrayana flavor, and the Path of Liberation that is a complete path of Mahamudra. The second requires in person pointing out and empowerment. Basically, you can start as a beginner and go fairly far along the process. It is designed specifically for busy lay persons such as ourselves.

From my personal POV, the DB is about a bunch of mostly Western students who were disenchanted with traditional sources of religious authority and looked for practical spiritual practices that work, especially for modern non-monastics. People would try out different things and report on what seems to work for them. Many of us have tried out different spiritual modalities --- Daoist, Buddhist, Western occult so have a broad range of experience. Over time, a lot of people decided to split off due to various differences in approach and/or politics, which is unfortunate. Also interesting is how many DBs ended up settling into a more or less traditional path.

From a traditional Indian Tantric POV, there is not necessarily anything wrong with physical wealth because in a non-dual world, everything is divine. I have learned some specific wealth practices and they appear to work. However, I'm not willing to pay whatever karmic cost there may be, so I stopped using them.

Interesting that you ask at this particular juncture, because I'm assessing what to do. Overall, I think what Damo is teaching appears 1) authentic and 2) produces results. The time and effort required for 2 varies by the individual, but there is no doubt for me that it works. Damo is a good instructor with a light heart and a lack of typical red flags. I was able to have fairly strong qi sensations, spontaneous movement, and felt the dan tian in the time I spent. Overall, I would say this is the best Daoist program I have come across. I would wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone interested. One may think, well, why are you assessing what to do? A few reasons: 1. Current lack of access to live instruction. The Academy I think was developed as a supplement, not a substitute for live practice. I'm sure my forms are off, but getting any live instruction (due to pandemic) appears to be a year or more in the future. I am concerned about the bad physical habits I will have ingrained in that time frame. Post-pandemic, with regular in person meetings with instructors, this might be less of an issue. However, even with regular, ongoing contact with live teachers, it takes a long time to learn postures, and there are no LNG teachers in my immediate area. 2. It takes a lot of time/energy. The recommended minimum practice time is about 2 hours, which isn't a problem if you are focusing on one thing. However, I have my own practices and often have to choose between one or the other. The practices are not easy, so it requires mustering up will to do them regularly. Also, consistent formal practice is very important, which can be difficult for us lay people with families. 3. More qi = more problems. We all assume having more qi/qi flow is a good thing, but as often is discussed, it highlights the positive and the negative. There are some personal negatives that don't need strengthening. 4. The meditative aspects are quite different from what I am currently working on. I have reservations about splitting one's intention as I think it may limit one's progress. So I would say the program is great, but perhaps not for me at this current time. However, who knows how I'll feel in a week or a month. TBD.

As I recall from my Zen days: Sentient beings are numberless, so there is likely no next. And if all beings are both finite and liberated, then time, as a product of ignorance would have no meaning. There is no next. Or maybe it all starts again, who knows? But becoming a Buddha for the sake of sentient beings is one of the key ingredients (from a Mahayana POV) to actually becoming a Buddha, so it is an important point of clarification. This reminds me of questions about the higher bhumis. Why not reach the first bhumi before worrying about the 7th?

The point of becoming a Buddha from a Mahayana POV is to help all sentient beings become free from suffering.

People give up on anatta/anatman too quickly. It is like a splinter that goes deep into the mind, wiggling out resistance, clinging and attachment. If learned over time with a proper teacher, it is clear and unmistakable.

Sounds like about 75% of the alternative healing places in Boulder, Colorado.

Another important aspect is the condition of the student. For example, one's confidence or devotion in the teacher/lineage can make up for other aspects. An important aspect-- mantra for wisdom. A teacher once said that spiritual practice could go in two directions: horizontal for power and vertical for wisdom. Power in this case could mean many things: siddhis, health, feeling good, etc. He said that for every person practicing for wisdom, there were 100 - 1,000 practicing for power. I think most of us have mixed motives.

Some food for thought:

There's a vast spectrum between the 5 weeks person and a living Immortal though. There are lot of teachers with varying levels of skill and ability. Some people I have met are great martial artists, some are great with qi. In theory, some would be great with wisdom, but that is beyond my experience in Daoism (not saying no one had wisdom practices, but if they did, I didn't learn any). I have not really come across teachers who teach absolute nonsense. This is not to say that what is being taught isn't useful-- some people want to be good martial artists or have an increase in health. What is challenging in my opinion is finding an efficient, results producing practice for one's goals. And who is to say that sticking with a less skilled teacher for some period isn't just what some one needs before they meet the master/lineage they have a deep connection with. As it takes a while to build some discernment, I would imagine some amount of hunting and switching. But to me, this hunting is a sort of preliminary practice in and of itself.

It seems like everything else, results vary. A lot of people don't seem to get anything out of it. Robert KC Foreman seems to have gotten quite a bit out of it, and based an academic career on it. I remember at one point also being impressed by Jerry Freeman's descriptions. What I've learned about mantras in Tibetan and Shaivite contexts comports with what Dwai has said--- the mantra needs to be "living," usually meaning the person who gives it has accomplished it. I've also heard that traditional methods contain a type of power to them that is lost. One teacher likened it to directions in a jungle. It is easier to go down a path if some one else has chopped the underbrush.

Just curious: have you reached out and explained your financial issues to them?

Sure. One example is working on strengthening muscle (or tendons or connective tissue). From what I've been taught, this can be counterproductive to internal type arts that start with qi. So for instance bodybuilding vs building a taiji or qigong body. Another I'm more familiar with are the different types of concentrative practices found in Buddhism. For example, in Theravada, there are intense forms of concentration (i.e. "hard" jhanas) usually based on Visudhimagga commentary. In these teachings, one pointedness often refers to focusing one's attention exclusively on a single object. Then there are less intense forms ("soft" jhanas) based on the suttas, which are more open and relaxed. In this case, one pointedness actually means unified with the sensory field. In this case, training one undoes the other. There is a similar dynamic in Tibetan Buddhism between harder "sutra" shamatha and certain Mahamudra types of shamatha.

How would you discriminate between such practices? The FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) never ends, in my experience. There's always another practice, lineage, initiation, etc. Even learning a short practice takes time away from other things/practices. Things are seldom as simple and clean as our conceptual mind would have us believe. Everything is on a spectrum, it is not all or nothing. Even something as simple as concentration can be presented in a way that is more or less conducive to less conditioned practices. Building up a foundation for one thing can tear down a foundation for something else.

Well, some people may already be involved in Nei Gong already. COVID has really increased the availability of teachings. Great question. I have a similar question regarding conditioned/unconditioned practices. It seems the more you do one, the tougher the other one gets.

On the other hand, a lot of people like to engrain their value system into the Dao, God, the truth, etc.

It is strange how those lessons can shift. Suffering is always a challenge. One of the reasons I got into Buddhism was that it was pretty up front with suffering--- it didn't try to explain it or sugar coat. It's right there, the very first Noble Truth--- the truth of suffering. It is so raw, so primal, so beyond comprehension. Initially, it was suffering that brought me to the path. Then, suffering was the motivation for practice. But currently, I have realized we are all suffering, just in different ways. And what really unites us is the wish to be free. And knowing these are universal experiences, this gives rise to universal compassion. It is really hard to hate anyone knowing that, like me, they suffer and wish to be free. And if they were really free from suffering, they would be so beautiful. May your suffering bear something useful for your path.

I don't see how insight can be measured with tests. If anything, tests would measure physical/energetic transformation or power, but all of this would remain on the relative or material realm. At some point, I suppose it cannot be discussed since I presume the tests are secret. And of course, many stories can be spun. A Christian might see siddhis as the work of the devil. To give an example: when dreaming, one can realize that one is dreaming or not. However, this realization itself does not necessarily confer any dream powers--- the power to fly or put one's hand through the wall. Nor does flying or putting one's hand through the wall indicate that one realizes one is dreaming. Of course, it is easier to develop powers while one is lucid, but these are not necessarily the same thing.

Not sure about that. The Samye debate seems to suggest that the Indian gradualists were faced with the Chinese non-gradualists, and defeated them, yet you still have Mahamudra and Dzogchen. There is something parallel with these teachings and Daoism, at least to me. But I'm no scholar. Maybe for you, but different teachers have different approaches.

I mean mostly talking about post-death states. The only thing I've heard is about the 6 realms. You get this in Buddhism also. There's the yogis and the panditas. The yogis won't teach what they haven't accomplished. The panditas will discourse on everything under the sun. You can see this with the Tibetan bardo type teachings as well. Some people who have more experience with dying people are better at tracking it. Is there anything you can share?

I'm curious, because based on what I've heard, Daoists have largely taken the Buddhist ideas and modified them. Tibetan Buddhists tend to ground their teaching on the experiences of people who have nearly died, who have recalled their past lives, and who have the ability to travel to post-death realms (i.e. delogs). Interestingly, if you look at the actual testimony, it seldom conforms as nicely to the traditional view. This is especially the case with non-religious children who recall past lives--- there is a lack of the karmic causality between one's life and rebirth (i.e. people who die as robbers and murderers are reborn as humans). Just curious how the Daoists ground this, and whether there is a brief overview or commentary generally available. https://www.scholarsage.com/series-3-9-meditation-vs-qigong/

"Experience" is another way to say awareness. If there is experience, if there is knowing, if there is anything at all (even a blank void, or nothingness, etc.) this is all arising in awareness. Usually when people talk about going "beyond" awareness, they mean some sort of reified state of consciousness. Even in the link you provided, the person talks about a "perspective" beyond consciousness. The word "perspective" implies awareness, so this is just playing word games. Usually people confuse a "sense" of awareness or a "state" of consciousness with awareness (even here, the so-called "Supreme Reality" is a "sense of Being Consciousness or Self"). If it has a sense, a feeling, a flavor or anything graspable at all, no matter how subtle, it is an arising.

This shows a misunderstanding of the meaning of "absolute awareness" in my mind. The sort of awareness talked about doesn't have form, boundaries, or limits.

It is important to understand that non-duality has many meanings and expressions, according to not only the tradition but the understanding of the teacher. For instance, it could be argued that physical materialists are non-dualistic in that everything reduces to matter. But there is also non-reductionistic non-dualism, and Buddhist type non-dualism which points to "beyond extremes" rather than some sort of monism. Generalizations of course have their place, but often they tend to be broader than the data points should allow. That's not necessarily true-- different versions have "creation stories," such as recorded in Kongtrul's Myriad Worlds.