Is the MCO Real? (Split from Benebell Wen on the Microcosmic Orbit)

[Neirong]

Quote

Is the MCO anything Real?

It does not really matter. When someone lacks skill or experience, they only have the option to believe or not. 
 

Which is absolutely irrelevant. 

 

When you actually have the skill/quality itself, when you can see energies with an activated third eye, or have a functional working MCO, or one of hundreds other abilities, belief and faith no longer matter. 

 

It does not matter if millions or billions of souls, or everyone around you, do not believe that an ability exists or that you, in particular, do not have it. They will have no power to strip your attained merit and remove it.

 

In fact, people with real abilities have little interest in making themselves known or proving anything to anyone. 

 

I don't think any advanced teaching is based on faith/belief. Teachings lead you to specific attainments through dedication, training, and a path where you gain personal experience. Not something written in a book, not something copied from a lecture. 

 

The problem with these threads is usually that people want something, but they are unwilling actually to work or make a commitment to their wish. What they have left is to devalue and undermine certain skills or qualities, telling everyone how meaningless it is to have a siddhi, how irrelevant it is, and that it actually does nothing at all, being just a form of metaphysical belief or delusion.

Truth is, there is an absolutely immense difference in life experience/quality/existential status between a regular untrained human and an average cultivator. It is more than a difference in society between a homeless beggar, starving for any food scraps, and a billionaire who has life's opportunities on a silver platter. 

Simply indescribable. 

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

3 minutes ago, Neirong said:

The problem with these threads is usually that people want something, but they are unwilling actually to work or make a commitment to their wish. What they have left is to devalue and undermine certain skills or qualities, telling everyone how meaningless it is to have a siddhi, how irrelevant it is, and that it actually does nothing at all, being just a form of metaphysical belief or delusion.

Truth is, there is an absolutely immense difference in life experience/quality/existential status between a regular untrained human and an average cultivator. It is more than a difference in society between a homeless beggar, starving for any food scraps, and a billionaire who has life's opportunities on a silver platter. 

Simply indescribable. 

An ant telling a bird that flying is overrated 

[Forestgreen]

2 hours ago, zerostao said:

 

Once again, the "scientific" view is exposed by its limitations by disregarding the subjective and only relying on the objective.

Medical science and psychological science use both qualitative and quantitative methods. Just like the two truths in Buddhism, both are useful as long as they are not conflated with each other. 

 

Some tend to value one over the other, which technically is an "unscientific" view.

[Cobie]

 

4 hours ago, zerostao said:

 

It doesn't matter if someone believes or not; if there is functionality.

No autopsy will find a mco in a cadaver.

The cadaver is dead and no longer an active energy vessel.

There are results from running mco.

That, idk how many practitioners over the years, spanning generations, generally agree upon.

Mco is not a physical structure it is a dynamic energy pathway. 

Once again, the "scientific" view is exposed by its limitations by disregarding the subjective and only relying on the objective.

 

Edit/ I said it before and it remains true that science itself, is a belief systen

 

I feel motivated to react as (from what I read on TDB) I respect you. Problem is, sincerely, all my understanding is already expressed in my previous post (quoted below). I don’t know what more to say, so I’m going to leave this discussion now. Thank you for replying. 

 

On 20/10/2025 at 12:38 AM, Cobie said:

I experience the metaphysical, have done for 35 years now. I also have had ‘experiences’ that turned out to be hallucinations brought forth by my own mind.  I prefer to say I believe in the metaphysical. 

 

Edited yesterday at 08:48 PM by Cobie

[zerostao]

50 minutes ago, Cobie said:

 

 

I feel motivated to react as (from what I read on TDB) I respect you. Problem is, sincerely, all my understanding is already expressed in my previous post (quoted below). I don’t know what more to say, so I’m going to leave this discussion now. Thank you for replying. 

 

 

 

Likewise, I hold respect for you.

And find value in your post 

 

If my posture, breathing, circulation, immune system, nervous system, and calmness, have benefitted from hallucinations, that is still winning.

 

 

[Trunk]

I think that the there are levels of working with the MCO, and the extraordinary vessels as an integral dynamic.  My impression is that we have a surface understanding of “dan tian” and “extraordinary vessels”, that there are layers and we should continue to excavate.

 

[SodaChanh]

10 hours ago, Taomeow said:

It is a belief system for the indoctrinated, but for the indoctrinators it is primarily (and often entirely) a power grab system. 

 

That is not my experience, having taken a masters degree. 

 

The scientists are pretty humble and have passion for the sciences. One even had a mathematical breakthrough in his dreams. 

[Trunk]

Some resources re: extraordinary vessels

 

https://johndaoproductions.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/renintro.pdf

 

https://johndaoproductions.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/duintro.pdf

 

https://johndaoproductions.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/8-extraordinary-vessels-maciocia-online.pdf

 

https://johndaoproductions.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/the_8-extra_vessels-yuen.pdf

 

 

Resources to plumb, above.

My 'current view' is that I've had a very surface popularized dysfunctional view of du & ren for a very long time.  My current view is that the extraordinary vessels flow together, are integral in their dynamic.  That there are energetic and consciousness change in dynamics (as energetics shift to the extraordinary vessels) that have very much to do with pre-heaven / post-heaven (prenatal, postnatal).

[forestofclarity]

Mod note: ants vs birds moved here: 

 

[Apech]

1 hour ago, forestofclarity said:

Mod note: ants vs birds moved here: 

 

Migration?

[Master Logray]

36 minutes ago, Apech said:

Migration?

 

Flying termites, also known as swarmers, are the reproductive members of a termite colony. They swarm to establish new colonies, ....

[Trunk]

My current view is that the primal motif for core nourishment is the umbilicus, in the prenatal ('pre-heaven') phase when the extraordinary vessels were more predominant. 

There are remnants of that dynamic currently:

 

1. a resonant + - polarity can be felt between the front point and corresponding back point ... if done *gently*.  You can look at this in terms of ch. medicine, & re: the nerve plexuses that go all the way through front ~ back.

 

2. this engaged resonance effortlessly causes a pulsing front ~ back which:

- nourishes core

- engages du, ren, dai, chong etc all in one swoop

 

3. This is a motif that is repeated, not only at the belly button, but at major acupoints (nerve plexuses) all up & down the center-line.  This more n' more efficiently and integrally drives the whole extraordinary vessel foundational nourishment layer.

 

      

I talk about this line of exploration (last yr 1/2 +) in this public thread and this in my PPD.

 

cheers,

Keith

 

[Taomeow]

12 hours ago, SodaChanh said:

 

That is not my experience, having taken a masters degree. 

 

The scientists are pretty humble and have passion for the sciences. One even had a mathematical breakthrough in his dreams. 

 

Your experience does not contradict my statement.  The thing is, there's no such generic thing as "scientists."  I also have a master's (so what) and am a descendant of four generations of Ph.D.s, two of which achieved truly great things in (of all things) agricultural sciences whose positive impact lasts till today.  (No, not pesticides or genetic modifications, nothing of the sort.  Real agricultural science as it used to exist before all that jazz.)   

 

You may want to re-read what I wrote with this idea in mind:  "scientists" and "science" is a profoundly ephemeral concept.  Smoke and mirrors that may hide anyone and anything.  

 

That's the generic everyday use (or rather glaringly wrongful misuse) of the term "science," which (as @zerostao pointed out in the statement I was expounding on) is absolutely equal to a belief system.  We are trained to believe statements we are told originate from "Science."  "Trust the Science" absolutely equals "In God We Trust" -- it's a statement of belief plus a commandment.  Real science has nothing to do with statements of belief and commandments.  And real scientists...  the system is set up to produce very few of those -- and disown, discredit, persecute them if they fail to toe the indoctrinators' line.  But enough tangent.      

[Sanity Check]

12 hours ago, SodaChanh said:

 

That is not my experience, having taken a masters degree. 

 

The scientists are pretty humble and have passion for the sciences. One even had a mathematical breakthrough in his dreams. 

 

 

If you wanted to name a good scientist in 2025.

 

Who would it be?

 

Also if its hard for you to select a name, wouldn't that imply science as an institution is failing?

[SodaChanh]

1 hour ago, Sanity Check said:

 

 

If you wanted to name a good scientist in 2025.

 

Who would it be?

 

Also if its hard for you to select a name, wouldn't that imply science as an institution is failing?

 

I know a guy working for the local space institute that I would find a good candidate. No, science is not failing, sorry to disappoint you. 

 

[Sanity Check]

27 minutes ago, SodaChanh said:

 

I know a guy working for the local space institute that I would find a good candidate. No, science is not failing, sorry to disappoint you. 

 

 

 

I think you completely misunderstood the question.

 

Past eras had Stephen Hawking, Einstein, Newton, Tesla.

 

Who is a good ambassador for science in the year 2025

 

It seems you cannot name a single name.

 

In which case we might conclude science as an institution is in a decline.

[SodaChanh]

20 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

 

 

I think you completely misunderstood the question.

 

Past eras had Stephen Hawking, Einstein, Newton, Tesla.

 

Who is a good ambassador for science in the year 2025

 

It seems you cannot name a single name.

 

In which case we might conclude science as an institution is in a decline.

 

Your thinking is wrong, just because I cannot name a person doesn't mean science is in decline. 

 

You do know LLMs? 

 

The breakthrough came from Google. So how can you say science is in decline when machine learning and LLMs have had big breakthroughs? 

[Sanity Check]

1 minute ago, SodaChanh said:

 

Your thinking is wrong, just because I cannot name a person doesn't mean science is in decline. 

 

You do know LLMs? 

 

The breakthrough came from Google. So how can you say science is in decline when machine learning and LLMs have had big breakthroughs? 

 

 

 

The hardware to support LLMs did not exist under recently.

 

It is actually Moore's Law that is driving progress in AI.

 

LLM. Large Library Model. Its simply a bigger library file. 

 

Let's say in the year 1980 a library file for AI was 10 kilobytes.

 

While in the year 2025 a library file for AI (LLM) might be 50 gigabytes.

 

Is that really a major achievement?

 

it is in terms of functionality but there were no improvements in software, its all hardware based.

 

Anyways, are there no good ambassadors for science in 2025? 

 

What a strange thing that is, eh.

[SodaChanh]

2 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

 

 

 

The hardware to support LLMs did not exist under recently.

 

It is actually Moore's Law that is driving progress in AI.

 

LLM. Large Library Model. Its simply a bigger library file. 

 

Let's say in the year 1980 a library file for AI was 10 kilobytes.

 

While in the year 2025 a library file for AI (LLM) might be 50 gigabytes.

 

Is that really a major achievement?

 

it is in terms of functionality but there were no improvements in software, its all hardware based.

 

Anyways, are there no good ambassadors for science in 2025? 

 

What a strange thing that is, eh.

 

You have not understood the Transformer architecture from Google? 

 

https://research.google/blog/transformer-a-novel-neural-network-architecture-for-language-understanding/

 

No, not only hardware. 

 

That above paper should puncture a hole in your argument, thus you cannot say science is in decline. 

[Sanity Check]

1 minute ago, SodaChanh said:

 

You have not understood the Transformer architecture from Google? 

 

https://research.google/blog/transformer-a-novel-neural-network-architecture-for-language-understanding/

 

No, not only hardware. 

 

That above paper should puncture a hole in your argument, thus you cannot say science is in decline. 

 

 

Which part of that paper "punches a hole" in my argument?

 

LLM is large library model. Its identical to the small(er) library model that used previously. The only thing relevant about it is its size being larger in contrast to library models of past eras.

 

The same with the chess program that defeated Garry Kasparov. The software was virtually identical to chess programs of past eras. The only difference was the hardware it ran on having more memory and more computational power.

 

 

[SodaChanh]

4 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

Which part of that paper "punches a hole" in my argument?

 

A new research paper comes out. Pretty soon after we have chatgpt with millions of users. 

 

And you are saying science is in decline. What is the logic behind that? 

 

I see denial of things happening. 

 

Science is actually moving forward while you are saying it is decline. 

[Sanity Check]

2 minutes ago, SodaChanh said:

 

A new research paper comes out. Pretty soon after we have chatgpt with millions of users. 

 

And you are saying science is in decline. What is the logic behind that? 

 

I see denial of things happening. 

 

Science is actually moving forward while you are saying it is decline. 

 

 

Eh.

 

In the year 2025, science is disappointing.

 

I think most would agree with me on this.

 

But to each their own.

[SodaChanh]

12 minutes ago, Sanity Check said:

 

 

Eh.

 

In the year 2025, science is disappointing.

 

I think most would agree with me on this.

 

But to each their own.

 

What is so disappointing? 

 

[ChiDragon]

On 10/21/2025 at 11:24 AM, Neirong said:

It does not really matter. When someone lacks skill or experience, they only have the option to believe or not. 
 

Which is absolutely irrelevant. 

 

When you actually have the skill/quality itself, when you can see energies with an activated third eye, or have a functional working MCO, or one of hundreds other abilities, belief and faith no longer matter. 

Yes, that is a good thought. As long the practice was done correctly reached to the realm, who cares how it works. Only I do! I like to investigated and told what I think and speak out. However, some people don't know and have no idea what I know with denial. That is okay, it is because we are at a comprehensive level.