Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardmills  This really gets to the heart of my disagreement. I don't think that breathing, or any dualist, on/off, in/out, light/dark analogy can accurately describe the flow of energy.
A better analogy from our physical world, in my opinion would be the human heart. With each beat, blood flows in AND simultaneously flows out. (It's more complicated than that of course, but for the sake of this discussion, you get the point).
This morning, during my meditation, I did some experimenting with this idea. And, while it was difficult to consciously hold the perception of inward flowing and outward flowing energy simultaneously, the experience for brief moments, was exquisite.
I've got to tell you that if that feeling I started to connect with this morning is an indication of inefficiency, I'll take a whole lot more of it!
Now, once again, I will reiterate that agree with Steve that there are times when focusing your energy in one or the other direction can absolutely empower your actions.
And I continue to respectfully disagree that it's a polarity.
The easiest way I can say it is that the physical component of our existence is about Either/Or, while the energetic component is about Both/And. |
Edward,
You mentioned about the human heart pumping in and outward but if you look at it on a per valve basis then it would be inefficient to pump blood in and out of the same valve at the same time.
I believe you to be arguing that opposite polarities can exist at the same time but your perspective of within the same body or within the same organ is on a much broader realm than what Steve was disussing. I believe he is discussing motivation and intention. If you have a motivation at a given time then it is less efficent to have a contrary motivation at the same time.
Its so interesting how two people can be speaking about the same subject but from different realities.
This does not mean that you are wrong but you are responding to his article so it is important that you aborb his point and focus on the inflow of his information and then you can more accurate respond with an outflow of your reaction. Since you did not fully import his points then you cannot accurately retort his point of view. This is ironic given your position.
Although he did make some absolute statements you are really arguing a different point.
You also stated that while meditating it was difficult to hold the thought of in-flow and out-flow but that you were able to do it. You were delighted about being able to do so.... But your difficulty in doing so both at the same time is evidence of the two thought countering each other.
It is great you are exploring you mind and I am sure that you could contribute greatly to these posts however to really retort Steve's opinion you must first understand his position.
Your position is valid in your reality however in the reality of Steve's position it is false. Its about perspective.