Sloppy Zhang

And what are the answers?

I've been lucid dreaming since I was a kid. First found out it had a name in 6th grade. For a period of about 4 years (last two years of high school, first two years of college), I was really into lucid dreaming. Got really serious into that mind hacking stuff and whatnot. Trying to be lucid every night, trying to get to know my subconscious, memories I had forgotten (like pages upon pages of textbooks- being able to recall any info through 100% lucid dream would be VERY handy), contacting spirits, or whatever else dreams are made of. One week I did some "seclusion" thing. Didn't leave my apartment for a week. No tv. No internet. No friends or family. Lots of mediation, reflection, and focus on lucid dreaming. Had to clear out the surface layer of mind to ease into the dream state. Well I noticed THEN, EXACTLY how much dream material is from day to day thoughts and actions. A LOT. Even thinking about meditation gets turned around and stuff like that. Ever since that time, I've been able to trace exactly where all of my dreams come from- what snippets of conversation I've overheard, etc etc etc. And that, in and of itself, has some value. And I suppose I should note that even during that seclusion, I didn't have that dramatically higher a frequency of successfully inducing lucid dreams. My point is, lucid dreaming, unless you are just one of those souls with the karma to do it "right" from the get go, is going to be nothing but your own fantasies, projections, unresolved issues, and other assortments of mental clutter. For it to get beyond that, again, you either have to be that 1 in a million person who can resolve it on their own, or you have to have some type of practice that sorts through all the gunk that is in your mind. After that, lucid dreams, prophetic dreams, communing with spirits, etc, will happen as a RESULT of your overarching practice. Not the other way around. I don't say this to discourage anybody, because I do think a lot of good stuff can be done with dreams even if it is only ever at the "mental inventory phase". But, unless you are that 1 in a million person, it is my humble opinion that it is highly unlikely that it will ever get to anything significantly meaningful.

Insert obligatory post about "so why don't these guys join the UFC?" Or blah blah blah. And don't even try to say "oh because all they want to do is fuck"- plenty of trainers and coaches have been saying for a long time that sex makes you weak in a fight (though it's been the source of much debate for years), so 3-4 months of no ejaculation, even for professional fighters, is par for the course (depending on who you're training with). Anyway, yeah, dropped that, and now I'm out

As with all of your other threads, the same advice that has been given time and time and time again must be given- check your fundamental assumptions and beliefs, find out where they are coming from, and address THOSE first. Every time you hear about a hot girl having sex with some bad boy, it's "see? I told you so!" And every time someone points out contrary evidence, you either ignore it, or go "that's not even true, I can't believe it!" So how about you actually start working on yourself- where are you getting these ideas, what experiences have you had which are telling you this? How many times have you approached women? How do you feel about yourself- your personality, your body, your social skills, etc etc etc?

They have fully locked elbows. They should at least learn the basics of fighting before they start getting too fancy for their own good

Well I'm not involved with any of the parties discussed here. All I can say is that, as far as my knowledge, MANY traditions, Taoist or otherwise, place a certain emphasis on bodily health. A healthy body is important to anyone, especially the cultivator. Many traditions have developed techniques for making the body healthy. I don't think ANY of the people who had a grasp of those health methods would EVER mistake them for being the pinnacle of cultivation. There is just SO much more out there. They are helpful to a body. That in and of itself is good, but not, I don't think, the top. Now these health practices can sometimes be simple or complex. Improper and/or partial training in these methods can lead to imbalances, injury, and sickness. This is their inherent risk. Which is why it is important to do research on your teacher and, because it is so easily to make off with a partial knowledge of something, important that you go and visit other people, and get educated about EVERYTHING you are doing (and this involves western doctors!). And it is a personal belief if mine that part of a good practice will teach someone how to still the mind and go into their body, and really try to feel how the body is reacting to a practice. In my experience, the body can feel what needs to be done, and if you pay attention to that, you will avoid many problems. A still mind also makes it easier to hear the voice saying "stop!" Anyway, when in doubt, stop and collect more information. No sense in wrecking your body because your mind wants to go a certain way.

Hey all! My dentist has been bugging me for a while about getting my wisdom teeth taken out. They say three of them could become a problem somewhere down the line because of their placement, but they're probably just going to take them all out when if they do it to preempt all of that. I can't say that I'm really having problems necessarily. But removal down the line gets harder with age. And I've got a small mouth with big teeth. So basically if something bad does happen, it won't be pretty. Anyway, I'm going in for a consultation, but I'm wondering it anyone can weigh in on the circulation of energy around the face/mouth with regards to wisdom teeth and/or their removal? Any knowledge or experience with this?

So I called the place to see if I can schedule a consultation. They were like "we don't do consultations, because then we'd have to do that, the surgery, and a followup in three separate days." So instead you go in, they take some X-rays (in my case because my old ones were too old), and then do the procedure. Which to me was just too much.... It was like they were determined to do the procedure regardless! So instead I'm going back to my dentist, getting new X-rays, and then going from there. But I'm hesitant because my dentist always recommends this surgeon, and this surgeon gets a lot of their business from the surrounding dentists

And how did you conclude that? Do you really think that people don't rely on family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, and others to not only survive, but thrive? Like I said- anyone can look at a divorce rate and unilaterally conclude that society does not value bonds- but it would be a shallow and shortsighted analysis. The very existence of this forum is maintained by the bonds between its members!

I don't know this person or their research, but I would highly question her statement. Human survival has ALWAYS relied on bonds. Human babies have to be taken care of far longer than many other babies from many animal species (some of whom are preyed upon by their own parents!) On top of that, even fully grown humans rarely have the ability to fend for themselves. Even in our modern society, we see this with division of labor. It all relies on the bonds we feel with our fellow human beings, and the understanding that if someone stops doing something, the whole system falls apart. The problem stems from the fact that so many people use facets of life to try and resolve or play out all of their mental traumas- relationships are about validating someone's existence, having a baby is about making sure he won't leave you, getting a promotion is about proving to the girl who dumped you in 9th grade that you aren't a loser who was too poor to afford a car, becoming a priest because you just never fit in anywhere else, etc. Suddenly, doing something which could be inherently HELPFUL, for the wrong reasons, becomes DANGEROUS. It's not that having children, for instance, is wrong. What IS wrong and destructive is attempting to leverage that child in your relationship. Nothing is wrong with getting more money. What IS wrong and destructive is trying to prove yourself to someone who hasn't been in your life (and if you aren't famous, isn't even aware of you existence) for 20 years! See what I'm saying? Don't blame the external manifestation of an issue- go to the root! I can see why, if you just look at recent divorce rates and things like that, that you might think "obviously people don't rely on bonds!" But look at how many of them relied on friends or family after the fact? How many of them relied on a team of people to help them get a job done? The sheer amount of effort and coordination done to publish a book, or do even a minuscule amount of research! You might begin to argue that not all of them have the most altruistic motivations. But you can't argue that they don't have some kind of common "bond".

Further than that, it is ONE woman's perception. Just because someone may have a website, an article, or otherwise exist in some public spotlight, doesn't make them any sort of representation for anyone other than themselves.

(Fixed that for you) And as a "nice guy" that gets plenty of attention from plenty of women, I'd say it kinda does. I mean, I'm not trying to brag. I'm just trying to say that there ARE ways to be nice and not feel like you are rejected by society.

This is the problem that I find exists within many of the "top down" schools of thinking- if you let something roam free, it will remain in its lowest form. The lowest form is always wrong, negative. Not only must you work to elevate it, but if you hesitate for even a moment, you will fall back down and into failure. How about this: sexual nature is inherently NOTHING. HOWEVER, people appropriate the sexual energy and direct it towards whatever their focus is on. If they are weak, insecure individuals, they will use their sexual energy to control and manipulate others so that they can feel some misguided sense of personal success. If they are strong, secure individuals then they will use their sexual energy to supercharge a relationship (whether it is through physical sex or by creating a dynamic, exciting atmosphere). If you have TWO secure people like this, the energy bounces off each other, and you've got a very charged relationship. The prevalence of bad sexual relationships has NOTHING to do with the inherent nature of the sexual energy. Instead, it has to do with people mistakenly trying to solve their own personal negative situations through sex- and in doing so, mess everything up, and since they aren't the types to take personal responsibility, it all gets blamed on the least common denominator: sex.

Because green is associated with radioactivity, and the Hulk became such by being exposed to intense amounts of gamma radiation. But if you want to believe there in a secret TCM reason behind it, that's anyone's prerogative.

I think the article makes some good points, but the overall assumption still is that the "nice guy" is a doormat, that the "nice guy" won't take charge, that the "nice guy" is boring, that the "nice guy" won't know how to charm, etc etc. It's almost the same type of warped view that is presented in these threads from the other side- that if you aren't acting out, then you are passive, and if you're passive, then you are passive, then you are more like a woman. And it's just not true. Ideas like this typically come from people who don't move through a variety of social spheres- they see a lot of people that reinforce their view, and think that that is proof. But really, they are just seeing the same types over and over and over. If a girl has only ever been around frat guys, she's going to think that those are the only types of guys that exist. And that's not true, even if she thinks she's "seen them all" just because she's been in a thousand relationships, even if in reality, they are all the same type of guys.

That's pretty interesting. I took an anthropology class, and our professor asked us if we thought human ancestors had healthy teeth from not brushing. We were all thinking about the middle ages with people having no teeth, and said no. He was thinking MUCH further back, to the pre-agrarian societies, before all of the sugars and starches came in and started messing up the teeth, and said that even skeletons that were found recently show signs of amazingly healthy teeth. I find both of these situations to be quite sad as well. I never thought about it that way. But I think you do have a point.

ShaktiMama, thank you for your perspective and experiences. This is one of the first things that I thought about in this situation: I will continue to read and consider your words, but this sentence just popped out at me.

How do you mean?

Just like food, then, you can partake in sex and not be addicted. You can be against the repression of sex, without telling someone they can be addicted. And just because you have sex doesn't mean you are addicted. I don't seem to recall anybody in any recent thread advocate sex addiction. Yet your behavior in some of the threads lately tends to indicate your belief that any sex is bad, because you can't separate the evil psychic energies from it (you mentioned that when you have sex with a woman, you can't NOT transfer energy, so you'd be getting all of her negative vibes), and that further, your belief that anyone who takes the stance that sex is not inherently bad is taking the stance that one should indulge in their lesser desires without restraint.

Or it could be that you aren't ready for the masters to teach you. If you're training to be a master, than you aren't a master, so the people you'd meet in the middle of nowhere might not be a master, and could zap you for interfering with their master training! And if you were truly free of vibes, than it wouldn't matter what the vibes were any more than a blind person would care whether the walls were painted cream or beige.

Just because you aren't repressing doesn't mean you are allowing. Why are you always going to such radical extremes? "Oh you don't think sex is bad? Why do you think fuckin' around is okay??? Why do you just cave in to your animal desires????!!!!!!" It is just a ridiculous and nonsensical jump!

Don't even worry about it. Here's where I'm coming from: I grew up with a Christian, and it was the first time I pondered duality, in which I rationalized out how duality falls short of explanation for, in this case, God. People always asked those dumb questions like "Can God make a rock so big that He couldn't lift it?" Well, God can do what God wants. So, yes. But God can also lift it. So God does. And the other scenario, God can do anything. God is also omnipresent (everywhere). But could God be nowhere? Yes. But God is also everywhere! Then you have hell, which is eternal separation from God. But God could pop in there if God had the inclination, but also be there all the time. So dualistic language doesn't go far in explaining these concepts even in Christianity. So is there no-self? Well we aren't going to take it to that extreme. But we aren't going to say there IS a self. But that doesn't mean both are true and/or both are false. It just means that the ACTUAL concept is beyond it the concepts ("beyond" also being dualistic ) However, I am of the opinion that saying "there is no self" is probably less wrong than saying "there is a self", because even though the actual case is beyond language, the actual case is different thing than the "self" as people come to think of it. So saying "there is no self" already addresses what they have in their head, which they are going to have to work with through the practice anyway. But even there you can play with dualistic words to be like "nuh uh, saying something is different is too extreme!"

But that doesn't mean that there is a higher self. It means that while there might not be a self, there's not not a self. And it's not middle of the road as in compromising by saying there is no lower self but to balance out there is a higher self. But that it's some non-dual sort of thing. But to say that there is a non-dual explanation is to go to the extreme, it's just as bad as saying there ISN'T something. Ah, duality. Impossible to communicate with

Given that I was not a native speaking the language or hearing the message at the time..... When someone says "there is no self", I tend to think they mean "there is no self." Not "there is no lower self but there is a higher self." Now I'm not saying you have to believe that. But I don't think we should try to read our own conflicting ideas into an existing teaching just because we..... well I don't really want to know why you'd want to do it. To raise an argument that all teachings are the same? I dunno. Let it be its thing, don't try and change it so that you can make it sound like something that will help you sleep at night or something.

A good article on the subject. I suggest reading "Initiating Into Hermetics" by Franz Bardon. Has some theory in the beginning, but is much more focused on the practice and practical aspects of Hermetic development, so good if you want to see Hermetics in action. Another good site. You could also look at some Golden Dawn books, but they've been a bit too much for me to get into. If you really got on a Hermetics kick, find some by Regardie.