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

[zerostao]

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,

 

[steve]

Ok

[zerostao]

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 12 hours ago by zerostao

[zerostao]

@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 

[Forestgreen]

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 8 hours ago by Forestgreen
Added stuff.

[Apech]

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.  
 

 

[Bindi]

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?

[Apech]

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?

[Sahaja]

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 .