zerostao Posted 13 hours ago On 10/15/2025 at 4:15 PM, Gerard said: To answer that and what you wrote below: You do what I do and MCO not only becomes dust in the wind but the last of your concerns. As I always state in these matters: Find out for yourself. I like the way you state it. At first I thought it read lost rather than dust; I feel the essence of your meaning is the same either way, yes? I definitely agree 100 with what you bolded Although, I don't mind being out in the wind myself, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zerostao Posted 10 hours ago (edited) I do think some scientists of the deeper thinker category, or any that are open minded beyond pure materialism, are fascinated with these concepts, subjects, that we all discuss here in TDB I think objectifying some of this has been elusive/challenging Do I think mco micro & macro are real? Of course I do I also agree with Gerard about all of this is going on naturally anyways. I think being too rigid in one's opinions holds folks back The Pathways energy travels through a xingyi player are not exactly the same as the taiji player experiences I am open to views that differ with mine. If anyone who has experience with both taiji and xingyi agree or disagree with what I said about energy pathways. I'd like to hear feedback Edited 10 hours ago by zerostao Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zerostao Posted 10 hours ago @ChiDragon Over the years here, I have always appreciated your commentary and the topics you've selected to discuss here. You've led me to look at things differently. I don't think any of us have it all worked out yet, but, over the years here combined with practice has yielded some real nuggets along the way I expect that to continue on for a good while longer 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Forestgreen Posted 7 hours ago (edited) 20 hours ago, Apech said: Not really it’s just that ‘science’ doesn’t allow for anything other than the gross physical and is therefore limited. We will always have quantum physics ( and breakfast at Tiffanys). The idea of essentialism though has been questioned both by philosophers, scientists, and buddhists. Are there subtle realities? I would say yes. Are they based on essences/substances? According to abhidhamma theory, as far as I understand it, no. Edited 6 hours ago by Forestgreen Added stuff. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted 4 hours ago 2 hours ago, Forestgreen said: We will always have quantum physics ( and breakfast at Tiffanys). The idea of essentialism though has been questioned both by philosophers, scientists, and buddhists. Are there subtle realities? I would say yes. Are they based on essences/substances? According to abhidhamma theory, as far as I understand it, no. Buddhism is a bit unusual as it doesn’t really have an ontology. In most other systems there are subtle substances , for instance citta in Samkhya and yoga philosophy. All three of the three treasures are subtle substances, jing being the most condensed form of qi above the physical. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bindi Posted 1 hour ago 3 hours ago, Apech said: Buddhism is a bit unusual as it doesn’t really have an ontology. In most other systems there are subtle substances , for instance citta in Samkhya and yoga philosophy. All three of the three treasures are subtle substances, jing being the most condensed form of qi above the physical. What if the Buddha just got it wrong? What if the ontological systems were closer to the mark? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apech Posted 32 minutes ago 50 minutes ago, Bindi said: What if the Buddha just got it wrong? What if the ontological systems were closer to the mark? Yes what if? Prana and citta come back into the frame with Tantra. So … what are we to make of this? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
