gendao

Western angel: Ancient Taoist immortals:

Waking up with the sun (and then eliminating) is actually natural and happens naturally if we are sleeping outdoors. So, I don't really consider this "doing" something...just returning to what we do naturally (before artificial lighting). Staying and waking up late is actually "doing" more. From a medical qigong perspective, dawn is also when atmospheric yang qi is "accelerating" the most...and so the best time to meditate to absorb that purifying yang qi.

From what I've heard, eating cold food is particularly damaging after qigong or sex. So, you're supposed to wait several hours first. Some of the bad effects may not be immediately obvious, either - but become more visible with aging - like developing varicose veins, for example. The older people get, the more of the difference you will notice in how their lifestyles actually affected them. That is why qigong cultivators following qigong "rules" appear to have found the fountain of youth as they get older while their mainstream American counterparts simply...get older and in worse shape.

Just curious - were you celibate for the 2-odd years it took you to open your MCO? And if you did have sex, (just curious) how much and how often? I guess it doesn't matter as much now if you have regular sex, since you've already opened your MCO... But, I'm curious about when you were trying to build up a critical mass before so? Also, is sex different after opening your MCO?

Great point. Dean Rehmannia mentions the same thing here. I can't wait until my liver...and kidneys...are finally cleared out.

Well, so much for any "psychic" Taobums... Interesting, so was Qin Ling only teaching them to sit cross-legged (not lotus)?

Ditto. Real Taoism is all practical talk about HOW to practice, not ABOUT "theory."

This is some greeat stuff for me to read these days...

Cool, never heard Ashtanga Yoga explained so succinctly. Isn't the core practice of Taijiquan supposed to be zhan zhuang, though (according to Yiquan)? Which is a static qigong? And a lot of Taijiquan masters also have opened their MCO, can rotate & move their dantians and may use the various postures to open meridians, yes? So, there does also appear to be some neidan included in the art...although that part is probably rarely taught and only at the higher levels. And can probably be learned separately more efficiently if that is your true goal. Although ironically, without such neidan achievements made...the art is pretty much martially useless. Just form, no gong. So, I have the same sneaking suspicion as dwai that Taijiquan was originally an offshoot off neidan. Neidan cultivators may have built up their dantians, opened their MCOs & meridians (for spiritual evolution)...and then found various movements that enhanced qi flow to open their macrocosmic orbits. They also found that with all this qi & open meridians, they had attained a supernormal degree of power. This power could be used in H2H combat, amongst other things - but was basically a side effect of neidan. Later on, people may have focused more upon the silky movements than the neidan, but that's also what made the art effectively useless. I think that Taijiquan without neidan is like a car without an engine. Thanks, I like those comparisons.

Well, it wasn't LKJ in your account, just really awesome peng structure & fajin (since there was actual physical contact). I personally think LKJ needs consent... However, if someone has enough ability to even do LKJ (with consent), then their fajin (with contact) is usually kick-ass (since it's a much simpler skill).

3rd row, far left (standing with arms crossed)?

So, are you basically saying that Yang is like the electricity (Heaven) while Yin is like the wire (structural Earth grounding)? Anyhow, these gender battles always end the same: Women get emotionally hurt/defensive and men get logically frustrated. Ironically further proving the gender gap and stereotypical Mars/Venus differences, lol. So, what's the real solution here??? Anyone?

Really? Curie did some research on radiation. But what did she actually invent? Yoshiro Nakamatsu has invented over 3200 inventions and holds 2300 patents. Yet, Curie > Nakamatsu??? How you figure? If Curie was a man and Nakamatsu was a woman - would that be considered a totally sexist conclusion? And Orianthi is a decent axewoman, but let's not pretend she's anywhere near the league of a Jimi Hendrix, Prince or SRV. Again, if men beat women in creativity, but women beat men in intuition, then why can't we just call that a draw? You don't hear men making excuses why they're less intuitive in general. So, why do feminists have to claim that women equal or surpass men in EVERYTHING? Which even then I'd accept, if it was factually-supported. But, that's simply not what the record factually shows. Not trying to be sexist here, simply factual.

Ha, me too! Anyhow, by the same token - those bad boy studs whom women naturally flock to...tend to achieve less greatness in life...because they DON'T NEED TO. In fact, they usually underachieve. Because if they are ALREADY getting tons of women by doing nothing, then they have no motivation to strive for anything more. It's more the guys who are frustrated with their place in life (often sexually) who feel the need to prove themselves more. Or find something to do with all that pent-up, creative yang energy. Which sucks for them, but is good for society - which then benefits from their creative achievements. Anyhow, you can see how much male behavior and the very heights of civilization - are subconsciously driven by female sexual selection.

I think it goes deeper than that. I think the male ego evolved to impress females enough to get selected to mate with them. That's why the male animal is always more ornate in nature and often battle each other during rutting season. It comes down to proving their genes are superior enough to get passed down. This also extends to the drive for creative invention, etc. So, if a male achieves greatness but at the end of the day still has no trophy female to show for it, he will still feel like an empty loser. And will be considered one by others, particularly females. Achieving greatness is usually just a means to the end of getting a great woman (or women) - and not REALLY an end in itself. Again, the Old Rules were based upon the liberal ideology that everything is merely social construct. Whereas, the New Rules are more scientifically-based upon evolutionary psychology. Anyhow, you are still correct in that women as a whole could evolve to be more creative over time...if they had to (due to changing evolutionary pressures). But if they have no need to, then they probably won't. Nature doesn't waste energy fixing what isn't broke.

Interesting, that's kinda how I had pictured you - a tall, lean guy. Sorta like Creation. Now you just need to post a vid of you in full-lotus giving some hoochie at McDs an O@D.

Interesting generation gap here between the apologetic Baby Boomer men pandering and patronizing to feminist womyn...vs the young guys growing up now dealing with the aftermath of that - bad boy-loving girls gone wild. What you have to understand is the entirely different breed of women each group is dealing with. The Old Rules simply do NOT apply to the New Girls. These are apples and oranges now - so New Rules have had to be devised. I think young men are the most misunderstood group today. Because frankly, nobody cares about them or their place in society. Most social studies center around the well-being and progress of young girls. While young men are basically left demonized in the corner as "the problem." I think this is an unfortunate oversight, especially when young men have been left to deal with the excesses of young girls created by their Baby Boomer dads. And they make easy targets for others to pick on who aren't in their shoes having to deal with the reality they're facing today. Hence, many are understandably dissatisfied, sexually-frustrated and joining a growing male pushback. Thing is: 1) If an older guy throws younger guys under the bus - who cares? He's got nothing to lose, and even more to gain in approval from women. This is Yin controlling Greater Yang controlling Lesser Yang. 2) But if a guy dares to criticize women - uh oh, he might not get laid now! This is also Yin controlling Yang. So, you can see why many guys stick with "safe" choice #1 here...purely out of self-interest, if nothing else. And without any real leverage anymore, what choice do men have? Now, to go back to the original question - I do think men tend to be more inventive and creative, whereas women tend to be more intuitive and perceptive. That's why there is no female Jimi Hendrix, Nikola Tesla or Yoshiro Nakamats. OTOH, I also know girls who can hear plants talk or are ridiculously psychic. Something farrr less common amongst males. But, I respect both capabilities and the fact that any individual could still excel in any of them.

Cool, where you get those supplements and the darkfield microscope at?

Cool, you got any links for her work?

Hot damn. That's hardcore.

Cool, got a link for that online step by step guide?

I think I get that - basically splaying your legs apart by "pegging" them out in front of table legs and pushing closer to them? I do the same thing, just splay them down into the floor (splits) with the gravity assist. Taoist Yoga advises placing the left shin outside on top, so that "yang embraces yin" (p 2). Whereas The Tao Of Meditation shows the right shin outside on top...but also says that you can alternate legs to avoid numbness (p 115). Personally, I alternate legs to keep my posture symmetrical.

When you say high HRV - do you mean high amplitude, or high degree of variability? The latter of which would seem to be the opposite of "stable?" Anyhow, I've been able to feel my heartbeat, and lately sometimes my pulse down my arms to my hands and today, my thighs. I think it's a good markpost you pass as you go in deeper. But I go from there into watching who's watching my pulse, though (or at least try to). Also, while the theory sounds good...I'm curious as to what level the "top masters" have actually achieved with it? Anyone can spout some great-sounding theory, but the proof is always in the pudding.