Nam Sao

I think this is how the program sees it as well. Aside from the Nei Gong program that is done on a weekly basis, which I've heard is best done alongside a 5.5 hour course on qi gong foundations, the next stages are to move into a 8 hour course called heavenly streams, followed by the course on qi gong deviations. I wonder if there are any people on this forum who are up to those stages and can shed some light on this

As far as purely using the online program (I think some people also go to seminars with Damo or certified teachers under him), there's an ~11.5 hour course on Qigong deviation, as well as some other videos, such as a 2 hour session called "qigong troubleshooting." But I'm very new to nei gong myself and quite far from having to use those videos (though they are available), so I cant speak to its effectiveness on my own, though I have seen other users claiming that they found it very helpful.

The link for the fb group is for students only and has a password, but it's available immediately upon joining. but there are plenty of podcasts here

You could always try Damo Mitchells online program. It's 40 bucks a month (USD), but each month has a wealth of information that goes well beyond a month's worth of training, and you can cancel whenever you want (AFAIK). Maybe you can't afford this on a monthly basis, but if you can scrap up 40 bucks every 4 months or so for 5 years, you'd have a significant amount of material covered in nei gong, tai chi, and bagua (all of which are included in the monthly plan). Then there's the massive library of information that is also included, which gives you even more to work with. In addition to this, there's also an active facebook group for students where you can get a lot of interaction with Damo and other students and ask questions, as well as Damo Mitchell's podcasts, which can be heard on youtube or other sites.

I think Damo Mitchell is super legit, but before I say why, here's some of my background: I've been training Chinese Martial Arts for 16+ years, including a lineage that I teach in and also lots of cross training that also includes non-Chinese arts. I'm still a baby in the grand scheme of things, but an important distinction I'd want to make is that while training all this stuff, I've never truly trained Nei Gong (and wasn't even sure if it was legit), and this is where the real point of my evaluation comes into play: Despite doing various sorts of internal arts, jam jong, and other practices that I could prove to some extent martially, none of them made me feel what Lotus Nei Gong's program did within just one week in terms of my body. It truly was training another layer of my being that I wasn't sure existed until now. Mind you, I have a very close friend who trains in Mo Pai that can light a cotton ball on fire, but what he was teaching me also sounded terrifying with things like ripping my dan tian due to having sex. No pun intended, but f*ck that. Damo Mitchell's online training really builds up a nei gong structure and practice (AFAIK) on things I've learned plus things I've never known, and I can feel it right away. In some ways, with me being a westerner, he explains things better to me than any ancient text can. His program is the reason I've become interested in Daoism and even joined this forum in the first place.

edit: accidentally posted an older post I didn't finish

It's not an unwarranted assumption, in your previous post that I quoted, you started out by talking about martial arts that "work," and then wrote off Kalaripyattu as something that doesn't work on the basis of cage fighting. Weapons training has plenty of use in actual self defense scenarios that people regularly deal with, whether it's attacker with knives, bats, guns, etc. In fact, I think a strong case can be made that in "modern times," there are exponentially far more instances of a person protecting himself from a person or multiple persons who are not anywhere near the level of a competitive fighters and will likely have some sort of weapon than you will have examples of people having to defend themselves from competitive fighters. Traditional arts have plenty of self defense uses in your average self defense scenario. You really don't need to master any art for the purpose of self defense. Plus, don't many MMA fighters cross train in arts that are not their specialties for the purpose of growing as a fighter? IIRC, some MMA schools even train in this manner primarily, putting together parts of various arts so that the students get an MMA base rather than just any one art. Competitive fighting, AFAIK, is far more than just training the martial art in question. It includes good cardio to last the rounds, strength training, supplements, dieting, weight cutting, watching videos of opponents, etc - all for the purpose of competing. In fact, when competitive fighters train for fights, they often spend the month or two before, at least, training very specifically for the fight in question. Any art, If it's not trained for competition, won't work well in competition. But just because you can't prove your own skills in a competitive fighting setting (especially if you don't train for it) doesn't mean you can't defend yourself effectively outside of that setting. Wing Chun is actually an excellent example to demonstrate my point because in it we have a relatively young form of traditional Chinese Martial Arts with no real history of regular competition that is now entering competitive settings and beginning to develop and even win. Alan Orr's MMA fighters train Wing Chun as their form of striking and BJJ as their grappling and they compete and win in MMA and Muay Thai settings. Qi La La is another person who, through trials, defeats, and more training, is beginning to be seen as a competitive Wing Chun fighter. As for Bruce Lee, he is not really a good example. Apart from not really being a competitor, he also trained Wing Chun for a few years (2, I think?) in his teens and had to work on it over time. It's not like he was some famous Wing Chun master who shed his art to create JKD (though Wing Chun Sifus def use his name to get students lol). Also, I think the idea that Bruce dropped Wing Chun is a misconception, since he primarily retains his Wing Chun flavor till he dies, Wing Chun material remain in his notes (though sometimes only in Chinese characters) and lots of his JKD drills, and some of his best students like Dan Inosanto sought out multiple Wing Chun masters after Bruce and still say that Wing Chun is an integral part of Bruce' JKD (though not necessarily theirs). It would seem strange for people like Dan Inosanto to seek out such an extensive level of Wing Chun training for an art that his teacher supposedly dropped due to being ineffective. Jesse Glover is another guy who surely didn't think Bruce's Wing Chun teachings were ineffective, and AFAIK, he had a background competing in Judo. I'm not putting all martial arts on equal footing. And I'm also not arguing "it's not the art, but the fighter" even though that has some truth to it. What I'm saying in regards to using competitive fighting as a standard for "what works" is that first we have to remember an important truth: "you have to train for what you're actually going to do." In that light, comparing competitive and non competitive fighters proves nothing because they're not training for the same thing. Traditional Arts can't just jump into competitive fighting. They need to learn the ropes, just like arts like Boxing, Wrestling, Muay Thai, Judo, etc have done through decades if not centuries or more of refinement and even cross training in shared competitive settings. I'm arguing that martial arts, arts specifically trained for combat, that work in normative self defense situations for a person, are indeed useful forms of self defense because they work for what that person experiences. I didn't say "anything that improves your ability to protect yourself is a martial art." It's a straw man view because you're posting a video to prove your point about kung fu masters in fights, and I'm asking for the most basic evidence to show that the Kung Fu guy in that vid is a kung fu master: evidence such as this supposed Master's Sifu(s), his school, and maybe his students. But you can't even show that he's even on the radar as a legitimate Sifu, let alone that he's a Kung Fu master. How is this not you simply putting forward a bad example that serves as a straw man? It's not a no true Scotsman fallacy because you have given no evidence that they are masters in any way, not in the slightest. You're also comparing categorically different things when comparing competitive fighters and non-competitive fighters. Why exactly would some Kung Fu guy in the mountains want to teach some MMA guy a lesson? Either way, to emphasize the lack of evidence with your example of a supposed Kung Fu master, here are Wing Chun guys in competitive settings, and I can give you plenty of evidence to show that they are indeed legitimate Kung Fu practitioners with legitimate lineages. These are videos of Alan Orr's students, who has trained in Chu Sau Lei Wing Chun under Robert Chu, who has trained under various Wing Chun Sifus from Yip Man lineages (Hawkins Cheung, Moy Yat) and other lineages. See the difference in evidence? In just one example I've already provided a Sifu name, a Sigong name, two fight video posted by the Sifu which includes the names of his students/fighters, and a link to the website of the school. Comparing our examples given and the differences between them, it seems clear that your example is indeed a strawman example, especially when you're insisting that the guy in your video is a Kung Fu master without a shred of evidence. There's also Qi La La, who has been getting more attention lately because you can really see how he's someone developing his Kung fu for modern competition, a relatively new process for many styles of Kung Fu. AFAIK, his Wing Chun is from the Wong Shun Leung lineage, though he also has trained Xingyi Liuhe under a Sifu Chen Shouhu and has also cross trained other Kung Fu styles. Here's a bunch of his fights along with some pretty critical breakdowns. But to close out with an interesting video, here's a sparring video with Qi La La that also includes Li Ming, another self proclaimed "tai chi master" who has challenged Xu Xiaodong (can't find his lineage or information either). I think this video clearly demonstrates the difference between Kung Fu guys who actually train to fight in some way and those who do not More Li Ming, the "tai chi master" that challenged Xu Xiaodong. I'm sure you all can decide for yourself if this represents any form of mastery in fighting to you.

This is great Looks a lot like stuff that Wing Chun and Choy Lee Fut guys do on the wall bag.

Some thoughts on "star" language in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament, and stuff First off, this is a really cool thread. As for the star language, I've read that stars were often associated with divine beings in ancient near eastern thought. There were some generally simple reasons for this. (1) They were far away in the heavens (the inaccessible higher realm), (2) they were shiny/bright, and (3) they appeared to move in the sky and so must have been living beings. We see this type of reference to the morning stars as divine beings in Job. The same Hebrew word for "star" is also used in Numbers A messianic aspect to this verse seems to be why Rabbi Akiva would end up renaming a man that he thought was the Messiah as "Simon Bar Kokba/Simon Son of Star." It would be a jump to say that this usage of star in this Hebrew text indicates that the Messiah will be divine, though that view would likely fly well in Christian circles Many Christians also take Revelation 12 to have a reference where Satan causes 1/3 of the angels in heaven to fall, though this is expressed in star terminology Speak of the devil, "Satan" often comes up as well in relation to Isaiah 14, though the topic can be a bit tricky if we stick to just the Hebrew text or modern Jewish views. It's only with the developments seen in other Jewish literature and the New Testament that we can build a more detailed idea of the singular ultimate divine rebel entity known as Satan. But if we do see Satan as being the greatest of divine rebels, then we can move into applying Isaiah 14:12-15 to him, which is perhaps the main part of this chapter that focuses on the divine being being described rather than literal human king of Babylon, whom the taunt is addressed to. Regardless of whether or not this is specifically about the Satan figure of Christianity, I think many scholars recognize that at the very least, this part of the passage starts to look at some sort of ancient myth about rebellious deities falling from grace. In terms of star terminology, this verse differs in that it does not use the same word in Hebrew for star as the previous verses. Rather than Job 38's (כֹּ֣וכְבֵי בֹ֑קֶר)/(kokbey bokher), which literally means "morning stars," Isaiah 14:12 uses (הֵילֵ֣ל בֶּן־שָׁ֑חַר)/(hilel ben shahar). In terms of lexicons on the word "hilel," Brown Driver Briggs (BDB) seems to have "shining one" as it's primary listing while the Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT) treats the word hilel itself as being "morning star/crescent moon." That said, we still have the next verse Here, we go back to the more common term for stars which uses kokbey, but can it refer to divine beings in this instance? I think so, because the Satan figure of this verse is being portrayed as deeply prideful, and his desire in verse 13 is to establish a throne above "the stars of God/(מִמַּ֥עַל לְכֹֽוכְבֵי־אֵ֖ל). Some may think of this as only meaning that this being wants to be "the highest," but it seems to be more than that. It is a special height that is being sought after, and this is perhaps best demonstrated in the fact that verses 13-14 alone contain at least 6 references to ascension in some way. It seems that rather than being redundant, each phrase has a unique meaning, and I think that to establish a throne "above the stars of God" is really a way of saying that this figure wanted the entire order of divine beings under him. And the punishment for the prideful desire to ascend beyond God? To instead descend into the lowest depths Many Christians view the work of Jesus in a way where is it done and yet not done since all of the results have not taken place, an "already but not yet" type of thing, if that makes any sense. This also applies to the defeat of Satan. In one sense, a Christian believes Satan is defeated in the sense that "sin is defeated," but I also think there another sense to it, a way in which God kind of gives Satan a divine middle finger for his actions. And this is in the idea that God will exalt mankind, which might be seen in Jesus' words to the church of Thyatira in the book of Revelation One view here is that the "giving of the morning star" is the exaltation of the human to the level of a divine being, and perhaps a member of God's divine council. Paul says two things that seem to touch on this type of idea as well: This passage looks as our current physical bodies as not being the actual body that is intended for mankind as beings that will live forever. Our bodies will ultimately certainly be exalted to the level of being imperishable. And if Jesus is the first example and cause of this type of resurrection body, then this body, while called "spiritual" may not necessarily be immaterial. But not only do we get these new imperishable bodies, Paul also says something interesting when criticizing Christians who couldn't settle matters with each other and would take each other to court: So for Paul, not only do we gain imperishable bodies, but ultimately the saints will also judge the world, including angels. The idea of Jesus giving believers "a morning star" as being a type of theosis or theosis related concept seems not so far fetched, even in terms of Pauline writings. Perhaps one could even say that even the current life on earth for Christians is the beginning of this process as they receive an indwelling of the Holy Spirit, adoption as children of the Father, and union with Christ, kind of like a constant iv drip to the divine.

There are numerous problems with this way of seeing things, to name a few: For one, you start out talking about the "martial" aspect of martial arts, but by the end of your post you focus solely on unarmed combat. Martial arts covers far more than unarmed combat. Second, competitive fighting is not the only indicator of the effectiveness of a martial art. Why do competitive fighters generally beat non-competitive fighters? It's pretty simple: they compete. There is a world of difference between those who train to compete and those who don't. Whether it's kung fu, bjj, boxing, muay thai, etc...none of it works as well in a cage or competitive setting unless you train for that. Also, comparing martial arts only in light of competitive fighting has its flaws. Some arts simply have never had a competitive format because they were never intended for that purpose. Using boxing as an example, it has been trained as a competitive sport for at least centuries (like far longer). Something like Wing Chun on the other hand, they're only entering that world now. And like with many beginnings, there's going to be trial and error. Another issue is that most self defense situations are not at the level of competitive fighting. It's funny how some people act like it's generally competitive fighters that are starting fights in bars and trying to rob people. One may not be able to win a fight in a ring or cage, but if they can knock out the angry drunk at the bar or the crackhead trying to rob them, then their martial arts skill is indeed extremely useful for self defense. Finally, I think it's safe to say that whether it's intentional or not, you have a strawman view of stuff like Chinese martial arts. For example, you have yet to explain why you insist that the Tai Chi guy that Xu Xiaodong beat up was an actual master. If you sincerely are able to look at the supposed "kung fu masters" that Xu Xiaodong has beaten and conclude that those were legitimate masters, you have an unrealistically low standard for those arts (and a low standard for research, at least on this topic, if you made this conclusion while never finding out about the Sifus of these supposed masters).

Notice how it's the Kalaripyattu guys that have to prove themselves in a kick boxing gym. Why not kick boxers grab swords or staffs and go into a Kalari? Oh wait, like most things in life, it's a bit more complicated than that.

Not an Indian martial art, but this is a form of Southern Mantis that was brought to India. Southern Mantis forms can be boring to watch, but I always thought it was cool.

I agree with the point about the difference between being in good shape vs fighting shape, but AFAIK, Xu Xiaodong has only fought frauds as far as wing chun and tai chi sifus. And I'm not saying that this means that otherwise you'd see MMA fighters getting beat by kung fu guys, but more that, if you look up these tai chi and wing chun masters (those are the ones I looked up), you really cant find any information about their schools and sifus. Sure they may have a youtube channel and some students, but kung fu lineages are often easier to look up. Who are the sifus of these masters? Out of curiosity, and this is to anyone reading this: if you saw this performance, would you think: "Ahh, it's apparent that this man's claims to being a tai chi master are indeed true" to any degree?

Within a Jewish context, this is what Jesus builds on in John 10:34 when he cites Psalm 82, a psalm which shows the lesser gods being punished by the greater God for failing and letting the world fall into evil. This is also looking back to Deuteronomy 32:7-9 in its oldest form that we know of, which refers to a time long ago when the "supreme" God divided the world among his divine sons, aka, the lesser gods. So Jesus, when accused of making himself to be a god, makes the counterpoint: doesn't the Scripture already affirm there are a plurality of beings called gods (John 10:35)? Jesus then adds to the argument "if they, those lesser gods that fell (a common Jewish idea prior to, during, and a little after the first century), are still called gods, then how is it considered blasphemy when I, who was consecrated and sent by the Father and perfectly follows his will, call myself the Son of God?" AFAIK, there are a few factors to why John 10:34 and Psalm 82 were both later interpreted as referring to human beings as gods, but one of the main ones is that many Pastors and Rabbis felt that affirming other supernatural gods within their own religious texts was problematic in light of monotheism.

Going to throw in extra ideas, always willing to cite further reading or just discuss things further for anyone interested: -In John 10:34, Jesus was not telling people they are gods or that humans are gods (though this isn't to say there are no elements of theosis or something related in the Christian worldview). In fact, he wasn't implying anything about humans being gods. He was quoting the Hebrew Scripture, which is is why he starts the statement with "is it not written in your law..." He is referring to Psalm 82 (specifically verse 6), where God (uppercase G "in theory") addresses other divine beings as "gods (lower case g in theory, though in Hebrew both read as "gods" in the plural/elohim)" having failed in some way, which later interpretations think are about humans; but I think there is a much greater weight of evidence that says it is a reference to divine being. And so, in context of John 10, when Jesus is accused of making himself a god, he quotes Psalm 82 to argue "doesn't the Scripture say that there are other gods." There's more to say on this, but this may be a good point to start a conversation on this specific citation of the Gospel of John. -Homosexuality as we understand it today is not addressed by the Bible (Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament), which primarily address same sex behavior related to idolatry. AFAIK, this can be demonstrated with the key texts that supposedly address homosexuality

I wonder if anything really needs to be reconciled, as crazy as that may sound There are people asking this same question about Islam/Daoism/Buddhism/Hinduism/Judaism/etc. There are converts from pretty much every worldview who look back and say "yea, my old worldview was basic/incomplete/evil/etc and I know many bad examples." In that sense it becomes a matter of perspective whether a system is deficient or not. It would seem that if people are using it on its own and reaching some sort of high level, the possibility is at least there for it to be sufficient. I think Christianity's number of "good and bad" examples that are available to us is largely due to it being a religion with a significantly high (perhaps even the highest) number of followers for a significant amount of time and also being intertwined with politics throughout history among powerful nations. This would make it especially hard to judge the system on the basis of followers, especially if one sees faith as being the only prerequisite to joining the Christian fold. This is not just true with Christianity. As an Indian dude, I've met many Hindus and Buddhists who don't in the slightest represent those worldviews the way they seem to be talked about here. But the "common view (which varies based on where you are)" often gets bastardized, at least imo. On a side note, in regards to Jewish expectations of the Messiah (assuming this is still interesting to you), an important thing to watch out for is the oldest source of these expectations. The vast majority of Judaisms that exist today are forms of Rabbinic Judaism, which is a post-Christian and post-Second Temple form of Judaism that took centuries to put together and become authoritative. It's common to hear a Jewish perspective today that cites Rabbis and think "ah, this is what Jewish people think, and Judaism is older than Christianity, so this is where Jesus doesn't meet the Jewish requirement." AFAIK, all Rabbinic literature is post-Christian and later becomes reactionary to Christianity as well. I don't think any form of Judaism after 70 AD is representative of Judaism at the time of Christ, and by that I mean they are far removed in significant ways. Ideas considered absolutely "non-Jewish" today, such as a divine Messiah or multiple bodies within the Godhead or two powers in heaven, are actually Jewish ideas that are older than Rabbinic Judaism, and are written about in the work of scholars like Benjamin Sommer, Alan F Segal, Daniel Boyarin, and Gabriele Boccaccini among others. That said, this isn't to say Christianity represents Second Temple Judaism as a whole either or is "the true view," as it's just a piece of that larger relatively unknown (even to scholars) pie.

I recently started the Baguazhang and Tai Chi programs at Lotus Nei Gong. I'm still in my first week. I started the others as well, but Bagua and Tai Chi are the priority or me. I've trained Cheng style Bagua and Tai Chi, but I've never actually learned anything in regards to nei gong. It wasn't until this past year when I befriended another person who had been training nei gong that I came to realize "internal martial arts" doesn't necessarily mean "nei gong training," at least that's how I understood it. Even with just the material for the first week, I feel like these courses are already improving my Kung Fu. I'm excited to see what I'll be feeling over the course of time. How are you liking the program(s)?

Nice to meet you all. In terms of my background, I mainly train Chinese Martial Arts and study bible & theology in terms of Judaism and Christianity, but I love learning about different worldviews and Daoism has always been at the top of the list. This site seems like a cool place to be exposed to different ideas. I made my account a while ago, but I recently started Damo Mitchell's online courses which led me back here to actually try and participate in some way. I look forward to learning stuff