Sloppy Zhang

I noticed that too, but it seems like Create Space is the "self publish" branch of Amazon. But I could be mistaken on that, as well.

It's not that, I don't think, anyway, you are doing it without purpose or are focusing it on yourself. As the video says, you are redistributing, balancing, and super charging the energy that makes up YOU, as an expression of the "higher you". Not stealing or sending to anyone. Just my interpretation, though.

I think the idea is, when you are just doing it with yourself, you are expressing the individual sexuality of your organism. Just you, just your energy. There is a sexual aspect to our existence, and masturbation without anything else is an expression of that. Which would make it a lot different from the lustful masturbating that most people wind up doing through the course of their lives. It'd probably help to think about it differently. It's not, "hmm, okay, it's time to masturbate like I usually do, okay, think of myself, think of myself, think of myself, etc...."

I usually just take it as some young person with raging hormones who masturbates all the time, but wants to be spiritual/a cultivator, finds out about retention, and realizes it's a way to cultivate, get perceived "power", AND still keep up their masturbation routine. Unless there's some strong evidence in the post to make me think otherwise, that's usually the working model that I think of. The whole thing seems suspicious to me. And I'm even MORE suspicious of someone saying, "masturbation (thinking of anyone other than yourself and your own energy) is energy rape at worst, energy vampirism at best, you should do this other thing which works on the same principles but is not rape, so it's okay to do, even though it's basically the same thing as energy vampirism, but we all know it's going on, so help yourself". But maybe I'm just anti-establishment? But as has already been pointed out, you gotta have pretty good intent and manipulative ability going into it to be able to do anything with it. I mean think of how many people masturbate to magazine models, porn actors, movie stars, etc, and how often those fantasies and things they'd like to have in their lives (a super model girlfriend, for instance) even REMOTELY come true. Same goes for the local hottie around the corner from you. How many guys know a hot girl nearby and NEVER get her despite all of their masturbatory fantasies about having her? I'm not going to pretend like I have some statistics or anything beyond anecdotal evidence and my own surmises, but I AM going to venture that not a lot of those peoples' fantasies happen, nor does all the sexual energy create a mega manifestation. Dudes keep jackin' off, chicks keep getting the attention.

It wasn't till I got about halfway through that I realized I wasn't in another masturbation thread But seriously, good post!

If that ain't sexual vampirism, I dunno what is (however consensual it may be). And even if you DO offer it to the goddess (even your personified dominatrix) then wouldn't that still be all about an image and run counter to the whole "singular energetic field" which is discussed in the video? Shouldn't it be about your orgasm organism and not about the whole worship goddess/energy vampiress? I mean you're basically training a bunch of dudes to carry out a form of institutionalized vampirism, except now it's the goddess/dominatrix that's taking the energy. (and I bet they get punished if they don't do it right ) Seems like this is mostly semantics....

So we got some dirty sex energy being sent, and which is bad? I'm just trying to be sure I get what's supposedly going on. How is energy being taken? I see how it is being produced and sent, and how it might not be the cleanest and best energy. But that would still put the object of the fantasy in the vampire position (I'm thinking of chicks who like to get the guys' attention, and the guys who like to get the attention of the ladies). How is energy being taken by the masturbator? Which still places the "target"/"object of desire" in the position of receiver of energy (however dirty it may be).

If most of the women someone masturbates to, that person would consider on the level of goddess.... does that count? Because even that option seems to be ripe for abuse. "Wow, that chick is hot. It's like she's a goddess. Fap fap fap. Oh yeah. Oh, whoops. I mean, it's like she's so divine in beauty. Yeah.... fap fap fapfapfapfap....." I think what Jetsun was trying to get at was the fact that lots of peoples' sexual behaviors, routines, and preferences are highly impacted by your parents. For instance, did your parents freak out when they talked about masturbation, were they skittish when they talked about sex, or were they open and friendly about it? When you started discovering yourself sexual, were your parents a friend you could go to, or an authority you had to avoid? So your sexual behavior, in a large part, would be playing out whatever was instilled in you by your situation. At least that's how I interpreted the comment, I don't mean to speak for Jetsun.

Sorry to sound as blunt as this but..... that doesn't seem to be much of a straight answer. What do you mean by the first sentence? "usually pretty young" so "there probably wouldn't wouldn't be to much of a visual pic", what do you mean by that? They're young, so the pic would be pretty darn visual! It's not like they'd be hiding or afraid to come out of their house, they'd be on the front page of every magazine, of course they'd be visual and visible! Are you saying that it's all the people masturbating to those like Britney Spears that she had a meltdown? Or the fact that show business is fast paced, there's always someone newer, younger, and there is constant pressure from friends and business managers to perform and get the headlights, while at the same time you are trying to live a private life with all the world staring at you and judging your every move, then suddenly nobody cares about you any more because we got new people to fawn over, and you gotta find your way back to do something somehow? There are TONS of non-esoteric, non-energetic, non-masturbatory, non-vampire, non-rape explanations for why people (especially famous people) behave the way they do in society (both positively and negatively). It is very complicated, and open for interpretation, yes. But..... well, yeah. As an aside, I always find it funny that it's quite easy to get things on peoples' radar if you call something a form of "rape" (not saying something is or isn't, I'm just saying the word tends to grab peoples' attention). Of course, if you don't have a clear case, it could backfire and seem like you are being over dramatic (even if you do have a point).

I'm not quite sure about how the mechanics are supposed to work..... The video talks about a couple things. 1) During masturbation, you build up and release lots of energy. But then you send this to the person in the picture you are masturbating. Energy flows from positive to negative. You've got a lot (positive), and they don't (negative). So you'd actually be sending them energy. Seems to me like THEY are vamping off of YOU (I recall some discussion about some method in which the woman steals sexual essence and vitality from the several guys she's in a relationship with....) 2) You take energy from the other person during masturbation without their permission. How exactly does that work? Yes, this is a very interesting point. Or perhaps we can attribute the downward spiral of celebrities to the fact that people masturbate to them so frequently that all of their energy is drained, and then their lives go to ruin? Except for all the sexual energy they would be receiving from the masturbators????? Please don't assume that just because someone doesn't immediately agree with some proposed idea, that it "just bothers them" or that "they obviously have not thought it through enough". I find that kind of behavior to be rather condescending, and not conducive to a healthy, open discussion. Rather than dismissing someone as not giving it enough credit, perhaps it would be a better idea to more thoroughly explain the concept and how it is supposed to work.

Sweet, thanks for the heads up!

Because you haven't gone to wikipedia to learn more about something you've never heard about? People are quick to dismiss internet sources like wikipedia, but really they're just doing it without giving any thought to its content (which I have found to be, FAR more often than not, quite reliable, and a good collection of quotes from many different sources which would be very hard to find on one's own). Dismissing wikipedia because it's wikipedia is just too easy, wouldn't you say? As to the larger discussion, I think siddhis are just signs. They are signs that you have either 1) gotten far enough down the path to realize a certain amount of something, which provides you the insight to be able to do them, or 2) have spent a great deal of time trying to develop them, even if you have not spent that much time on spiritual cultivation. Furthermore, it's important to ask "who is defining them?" as in, are enlightened people saying, "when you become enlightened you have powers", or is it onlookers who go, "wow, that person can tell things about the future, that's called being psychic, and he meditates! Oooh, aaaah." Something might look very different to people on the outside than to people in the middle of things.

As others have quite astutely pointed out, in my humble opinion, we should question the terms of the question, first. Each have benefits and drawbacks, which could help or hurt different people under different circumstances. Steroids will get you strong "faster", but their abuse can lead to many ill side effects. Non-drug supported exercises will get you stronger "slower", but in the long term you are healthy for a substantially longer period of time (lifetime?). So where is the cut off? Who can be stronger/faster 2 weeks from now? 2 months from now? 2 years from now? 20 years from now? Fire traditions may get you crazy stuff, but you may burn out your system if it's not right for you. Water traditions may ease you into a place, giving you what you can handle little bits at a time, or you may stagnate if it's not right for you. Each individual is unique, and so what they need physically and spiritually differs greatly from every other person. What works for one doesn't work for another. That doesn't mean something is absolutely more or less effective.

Interesting, just today I overheard some guy telling his girlfriend about the sport of golf.... He said, "the thing about golf is that, what seems most natural, what you'd naturally want to do, is wrong in golf.... at least for me." I've never played myself though!

Hm, interesting stuff, B.K. Frantzis has people certified in various levels of that, right? It seems like that is out there in various forms, but some people only know different levels of it- some people only know the physical movements, some know those and the energetics, and the meditative aspects of it, the stuff that I'd say really make it a "shengong", well, only a few know. But here's the thing with really, REALLY advanced stuff (at least, how I understand it now)- even if you know how to do it, it's useless unless you actually CAN do it. Like high level meditations, and qigong and stuff. Unless you actually have the energy in your body strong, open, and flowing, and the ability to enter different meditative states at will, "knowing the technique" is really just knowing the THEORY. Even if you try to do something with it, you'll most likely either fail, or possibly hurt yourself. The thing that separates one person who knows it and is able to do it, and the person who knows it and not being able to do it, is the person who can do it has actually put the time and effort to be able to DO it. The other person, nope. In this situation, I'd say don't even worry about it. I don't know how much you know of it, how much you told him of it, how much he was/is able to work with it, but I'd say that, worse case scenario, it's absolutely useless to him anyway, and if he's the type who will give up, then after a while will drop it of his own accord in favor of something that will give him what he thinks he should be getting. If he's really dedicated, then he'll work to a place where it is useful for him, in which case you helped him out a great deal

I think that things should be accessible. But at the same time, people gotta work on the stuff that is for their current level. And I don't necessarily think that you should hold something back because, "oh no, it's precious, I don't want unworthy people to have it", but in some cases, people who do it wrong can actually get hurt (think martial arts techniques and things). So I think that there should be a clear progression up from the beginning to the very end, and I think each and every step should be openly available to those for whom it is appropriate. If you don't feel comfortable giving the full blown, or a more advanced technique to somebody, then give them something else which is effective, but is good for their level. If they come back and it seems like they have handled that capably, then give them something that's one up on that. See how they treat that material, then ease on in to the other stuff. Out of curiosity, what did you recommend to them?

Yes, it certainly applies to many things. I think back, and a couple of the fights/physical altercations I've had with/against people tended to arise because one or both parties wanted to save face- you disrespected me, I can't let you get away with that, I need to show everyone what I can do, look at me, rawr, etc etc. Seems like a good idea in the moment, but it definitely doesn't lead to happiness. One or both parties get injured, you worry about retaliation, who's going to get involved later on, are the authorities gonna get involved, legal ramifications, etc etc. Conversely, you could lose a little face by apologizing, bowing out, avoiding certain people or places, and generally move on with a happy life. Maybe not everything can be avoided like that, but doing what you can when it's possible certainly goes a long way, I think.

I believe that different energy flows, and flows differently in different situations. Learning to be in harmonious relationships with that flow is essential to health and happiness. Being able to accurately perceive and position yourself in relation to that flow is important. Feng shui, and related systems, I believe help you learn how those flows work. However, I believe the rules and such associated with those systems came about as a result of people who could directly perceive the energy- then certain things tended to happen a certain way more often than not, then they got turned int rules. If your primary goal in learning feng shui is to learn all the rules and things like that, that's great, there are lots of resources to do that, and they seem to be quite effective in doing what it is they do. However, it's my personal opinion that one's time is better spent learning how to correctly perceive and interact with different flows of energy. That way, no matter what the situation, you can correctly know what to do just by virtue of knowing the situation, rather than having to run through a checklist of all of your rules. Though knowing the rules and instructions in conjunction with doing what energy work you do is also good too.

Awww.... I need to stay patched in to TTB 24/7 so I miss nothing!!!!!

He's not moving his dantien, but his center of gravity. Perhaps the point he was trying to make is that you must center yourself in where you move your center of gravity like you would center yourself in the dantien. So yeah, it's like you're moving your "dantien", but you aren't actually moving your "dantien". But I dunno this guy or aikido, so I could be wrong. Just my interpretation.

As far as my understanding goes, most of what he went through prior to his training with Liu Hung Chieh was fire method. He went through training to become a Taoist priest, was initiated fully into that, and also trained in yoga, which (a lot of yoga I've seen, anyway) is more fire-oriented. But I think two things should be considered- 1) He is only speaking from his experiences. There are methods which would probably be considered fire element by the way he lays it out in his work, but which are really quite balanced, which are just as much committed to establishing the health and happiness of the human body prior to anything too extreme as the water method. 2) You can't neglect the marketing angle, and the up-hill battle that he's probably had to fight to get his stuff out to people. I mean consider Mantak Chia over there who's talking about channeling your sexual energy upward to give you multiple orgasms and (for the people who say jing = semen) health (and possibly immortality). Yoga over there talking about awakening raw spiritual energy through kundalini and having you plow through all your chakras to become super powerful/united with divinity. And then you got Mr. Water Method, new kid on the block, saying, "hey, guys, slow down, pay attention to your bodies!" Not a lot of emphasis is placed on the very real potential for harm that is inherent in many systems, and I think Frantzis not only has experiences on both sides of the fence in showing differences, he's had quite a lot of first hand experience with how those systems can DAMAGE you, even if you're doing everything mostly right (which would be a case in which it works TOO well). Everything tastes better with a grain of salt

Break it up into chunks, save it somewhere, read it, come back later and re-read it. Look at the structure, descriptions, and philosophy of other paths, then come back and re-read. A lot of stuff in this thread makes sense, but it's synthesized out of a lot of research and practice. So yeah, this thread has a lot of pretty dense stuff, but once you know what's going on, it'll make more sense Basically- there's a lot of nuance and detail to these things, so it's hard to say something simple like, "yes, you're right" or "no, you're wrong". It contains portions of it which are analogous to qigong, but also contains parts of it which get more into what could be described as internal alchemy, even kundalini awakening. The sections on working with the vital force could be seen as working with chi. But rather than focusing on the channels and things like that, you just do everything at once. Now there are pros and cons to this approach, especially if you need to address a blockage right then and there. But Bardon is pretty light when it comes to his instructions- you've got to extrapolate quite a bit. William Mistele has a lot of interesting insights on his page (which has been down a lot recently), and says that a master magician from Bardon's system would have just as much health and chi flow as a master of qigong- because they work the same energy and are trying to do the same thing. But since you're familiar with the text, look at some of the wording that is in IIH (and also in Iyengar's "Light on Yoga", if I recall that title correctly): things like focus, thought control, eliminate thoughts, restrict the body movement, a lot of focus on willpower, dominating your body, bringing it under "control" of the mind, you being the "master" of yourself, your thoughts, the elements, etc. You don't "let" things happen, you "make" them happen. You decide what's going to happen, and it happens. Anything else you block or restrict. You dominate. You control. You master. That's the typical "fire" way of thinking. But notice that IIH works with ALL of the elements, and seeks to balance your body, mind, and soul. Of course, this ultimately leads to the upward unification with the divine. You cultivate yourself in "higher" planes of existence. The mental sphere is higher than the astral sphere, which is higher than the physical sphere. The sphere on top controls the one that's below, it's much harder for the lower to impact the higher. To affect change you start from the top, and it carries on down. The water method traditions are not quite like that. But if you're reading Frantzis' stuff, you'll hear the explanation for that tradition.

How are you defining regular? 9th grade is when getting on the internet started to be a regular occurrence for me to get on the internet. I had access to the internet probably around.... 7th grade, but never really used it. Pretty much every time I wanted to get on, I'd tell my parents it was for homework they were pretty strict about that (but by then I really DID have a lot of homework requiring the internet) We only had one computer, so when my younger sister and brother got into high school, it was always a fight. My junior year of high school is when I just waited for them to go to sleep, and I'd stay up and be on the internet for whatever I wanted. Then I got my own computer for college, and that's when I really got the plunge But I don't have a smart phone or anything, so there are some days I wake up and don't check my e-mail before I head out, so you could argue I don't have "regular" access even now As far as books, uh..... we had a lot. But my parents were big on education and things like that. I bet they read the same statistic you did. 'Cause they were always trying to get me and my siblings to read and stuff (which we did). And I'm in college now. I'd say it's more the parental push than it was there being books. Because, you know, you can learn a lot from books and get a significant portion of the knowledge you could get from college, minus the exorbitant fees and that piece of paper.

Well as you said in your post, it's not the thoughts alone that are the only influential aspect. How much thoughts play? Not sure. How much subconscious, habitual decisions go into it? Not sure. So, I dunno. I just shy away from overarching statements about what does what and how and how often. Because with each situation, it's different.