Sloppy Zhang

Probably..... most if not all. People discover practice methods... These methods are repeated by others with some success... They get codified and are passed on from person to person, even if the subsequent people experience less, if any, success than previous generations.... These codes become dogmas that are not questioned or modified because of their extensive tradition, and are open to be warped and abused, even if they do work for a select few, who may be similar to the creators of the original methods. At least, that's how I see it in a broad sense.

Being masculine does not mean being a buffoon, a meat head, a bully, someone who fights without provocation. These are crude, uncultivated, immature expressions of the masculine energy. I've seen it described as "false yang", though I don't remember where, sorry if I'm using the term incorrectly. Sometimes you need to be masculine, yang, sometimes you need to be feminine, yin. Modern society has reached a point where being too masculine can actually hurt you. If you're too physically minded, not a lot of careers for you. Well educated people tend to get preferential treatment. Being well educated means you gotta do a certain amount of sitting around, and an even greater amount of sitting around on your own time to get better at sitting around on someone else's. Quite easily to fall into a sedentary lifestyle, quite easy to lose your edge, quite easy to lose sight of the value of masculine/yang/outgoing energy. However, if you ever encounter someone who is overtly masculine, even in an immature way, you will realize the imbalance. If they start to bully you, push others around, you will notice the imbalance. If you act in a yin manner, they'll keep pushing. They will push and push until no one exists but them. This is a gross imbalance. You will start to feel uncomfortable in the situation, and will feel uncomfortable until the situation is resolved. Everyone else will feel uncomfortable as well- everyone, that is, except for the ignorant block head who can't even realize that he's the idiot in the room that is making it insufferable for everyone else. And sometimes, in order to get rid of someone pushing too far, you have to push back. Now there are ways of pushing back in highly refined, conservative, mature manners. Look at high level martial artists (of the internal or external variety). Their technique is superb, sublime. Even MMAists, like Anderson "The Spider" Silva display an effortless, and even playful, quality in their fighting style. They can and will put you down. They'll do exactly what is necessary to finish the situation, but no more. No need to go overboard, because they have nothing to prove, their actions speak louder than any boasts or vulgar displays of force. No excess, no wasted movements, no imbalance. Mature, reserved, efficient, fluid. Masculine, but not domineering. Gotta have the balance. Gotta know how to use it properly. Now this quality is not limited to fighting, it can be expressed in any and all social interactions.

Well people with the physical book could always, like, scan it in, you know. Maybe be lower quality, and/or require some cleanup, but if there was no other way. Might not be acceptable legally, however.

That's really too bad. What do you know about the copyrights and stuff on the book? If someone were to start reproducing versions of the now unavailable portions of the book... what would the law have to say about that bit? I don't want to partake in anything illegal, and I certainly don't want to push others to do the same. And I certainly don't want TTB to be held responsible for any illegal activities, so I don't want to encourage any of that sort of behavior. However, I do want practices to get to people who feel a need to pursue them. And if there is no way to obtain a copy of the book..... Where do you get that?

This. And if you believe the history that B.K. Frantzis is telling, Daoist monks were walking the circle as part of practice for a long time (potentially thousands of years) before tai chi even existed. So the whole "the progression of practice goes from tai chi to bagua" is just one way of looking at it. In fact, if look at the progression of his books "Relaxing Into Your Being" and "The Great Stillness", he teaches the straight line and circle walking as the intro to walking meditation. Bagua would then stem from the walking meditation. Of course, tai chi could also fit the bill. But I certainly don't think you have to choose/do one before the other. Like Ya Mu said, do what you like. And like RV mentioned, go by your intuition. If practicing bagua feels like that's the direction your practices need to go/are going, go with it, and don't necessarily feel the need to pick up something else because that's the "proper order".

Is the Kunlun book still available? I purchased it from Lulu. If they aren't still actively selling it, perhaps you can find someone who has an extra copy on hand to lend out. If I recall correctly, the posture for the Kunlun training isn't supposed to be shared with other people outside of the seminar/book, so I believe that it hasn't been shared publicly on the web in order to pay respects to that. To my knowledge, the Red Phoenix (from what I understand, a very powerful and crucial part to development) isn't supposed to be shared except for in person, which is why people who've gone to a seminar have gotten it, but those who haven't, well, haven't. Though as an aside, it's my personal opinion/running hypothesis that if this energy/spiritual cultivation is actually real (and not just elaborate tricks played by the mind), then it is a natural part of humans, human development, and can be accessed and cultivated by any human on their own, by virtue of the fact that they are human. I look at the whole "personal transmission", "energy transfer", "seed planting", "connecting with some energy reservoir" of the school a bit sideways- if it's truly something that comes from within, then you already have it, and all you need is the technique and methods to access it. Stuff from the outside should not factor in too much. Take it or leave it.

Hmm....

Seriously Non, you gotta get out more The more women I've gotten to know, the more I realized that they are just as varied as guys. Some are very chill, some are very tightly wound, acting out whatever social roles they want. There are a lot of different women out there, and they all have different personalities. There's just no way to generalize. I've known a lot of attractive women who used their looks to manipulate people, and I've known a lot of attractive women who were actually very cool and non-judgmental, who really wanted to connect to others, because all their lives people had just been treating them as "the hot chick" and not really getting to know them. So, you know, it runs the gamut. You can't just generalize about "the majority". And, again, being a nice guy doesn't mean being a doormat. If you never express interest in a girl, she's going to think you aren't interested and moving on. So, you know, if you're the "nice guy friend" who listens to all her problems, maybe instead of keeping your mouth shut and hopes she one day realizes how much you care for her, maybe you should actually get together with her in person and be all like, "hey, I like you, you should dump your jackass boyfriend". You can cry all you want about social norms and stuff, but I've found a lot of girls will give a lot of not so subtle hints, who will bend over backwards, just to try and bait the guy into making the move, because they feel that, for whatever reason, they can't/shouldn't make the first move, so they'll do everything in their power to get you to make the first move. And guess what? If you don't, they'll think you don't like them, and they'll stick with their jackass boyfriend who is at least capable to tell people what's on his mind. Being upfront with her about your feelings and about what you want is in no way being a jerk, and will in no way mean you are no longer a nice guy.

Why haven't I posted this before?

It seems to me like people have taken broad, philosophical statements, things like "non action" to an extreme, and recoil against people who take action, and ask questions. As if anyone who isn't sitting silently is not going to learn anything. And that's certainly one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is with sayings such as, "God helps those who help themselves", and "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" (both of which were passed around my family). The meaning? If you want something to happen, sometimes you have to DO something. If nobody asked for authentication and the verifiability of various pieces of information, who would offer it? What incentive would anyone have to offer anything? NONE! Why? Because no one asks for it, because they'll believe you even WITHOUT any evidence. Asking questions is not being immature, it is not demanding. There is nothing unreasonable about anything that Ralis has suggested with regards to verifying Max's authenticity. And, in my opinion, his actions should be mirrored by others in the interest of promoting an openness of knowledge, as well as an accountability for the masters. There is nothing wrong with this. But this seems to make people uncomfortable, and they prefer to characterize such requests as "demands", often in a childish fashion, by characterizing them further as "gimme, gimme, i want it now!" requests, rather than what they really are- prompts for a disclosure of the truth.

Maybe it's just for convenience? I was talking to a guy who works on his own, but filed the paperwork to become an LLC. He's still a one man operation, but he did it for tax reasons and stuff. I didn't really follow him up on the line of questioning at the time, but perhaps it's just a matter of convenience.

That does appear to be the case:

Yes, it says quite a lot that so many respectable members have spoken highly of the practice. But that doesn't really go very far in supporting any of the claims that have been made regarding the system or the person(s) involved in such a system. And I prefer to acknowledge such a distinction.

it's not about any individual practice- we could just as easily be discussing John Chang or Wang Liping. It's the mechanisms by which people conjure belief in someone, even if they have never seen them or done them, through an atmosphere of passive acceptance, that I am interested in observing, discussing, and ultimately hoping to break down. Most people are unwilling to be cast in the role that, say, Ralis has been cast into. They don't want to ask questions because that means they have doubt, that they are controlled by the ego, and things like that. Even if there is no actual basis beyond hunch and hearsay testimony (even from reliable people), people still really believe and take it seriously. Now believing in and of itself is not wrong. In fact, even something you have faith in can still be right, even though you can't prove it- but there is, and there should be, nothing wrong with asking why so many people believe in something/someone even though facts, which would be so easily provable and verifiable, are not being proven and verified. And yet here we are, and here we have been for a while now! People are going to have different criteria for belief/trust in something/someone. And for some people, that means that something not have glaring contradictions or loos ends. Is the person who they say they are? Did they do what they say they do? Are they teaching what they say they're teaching? Are they going back and rewriting history? Why are they doing it? Because they're a "coyote"? Everybody here does realize how to some people that DOESN'T speak "mystery" and "crazy wisdom", but instead screams, "con"? For some, glaring contradictions an unproven statements do not scream "come closer", they scream "stay away". People who think like this are not wrong. They are not controlled by the ego. They don't have a less chance of enlightenment. They just simply have to work through things a little bit different. Yet the degree of resistance to such a process is astounding, and to someone who thinks in such a process, it is only cause for more concern and apprehension! Posts that seem to have "wise sayings" and generic spiritual advice don't do anything to help, they only muddy the waters and distort the message that someone going through a such a process is hoping to find. And yet, when a person raises their concerns over that, they are met with more posts about how they're never going to get it because of something or another

Well it's pretty funny! I had a chat with some international students at my university over the super bowl ads.... right over their heads! It's kinda funny how many cultural cues you rely on, but you don't realize it until you suddenly don't have them. So imagine what a taoist text would be like (or anything, for that matter) if you were trying to make it veiled even to your target audience! Crazy! Especially if your thousands of years and significantly culturally removed!

I believe we've had a number of lengthy threads about what that actually means. So what exactly is so clear? Why is it so clear? What were you referring to when you said the meaning was obvious? Do you have to be a taoist to understand? What is taoism? Are you a taoist? I'm not really in the mood, nor do I have time for, mind games and word play. Like my mother always says, say what you mean, and mean what you say. Out with it, or I'm gonna quit paying so much attention to this thread

what kind of advertisements have you been watching? A lot of them are surprisingly NON literal, relying a lot on social conventions, construction, cues, shared meanings, and the like, to convey meaning to their target audience. Someone not a member of the target audience just isn't going to get it. Perhaps not unlike a taoist text, hmmm.... The parts that read.

Actually I made it pretty clear that I was unsure as to what exactly it was you were trying to say. I responded to one of your posts, then one of your later posts just had one line that said: There was no quote you were responding to, there was no direction, there was no lead in, there was no jumping off point, it was just that, hanging out there. So, yeah, maybe you could be a little bit more obvious about what, exactly, you think is so obvious, and why you think it is so obvious. You're making an awful lot of posts that are just one liners and philosophical point outs. I've quoted the sections of your posts that I'm referring to, it'd be nice if you did the same so we all know what we're responding to, and can trace back the conversation.

I don't know who you're talking to. It's it's to me, perhaps you should speak in more concrete language. Perhaps relate it to a pertinent example, like Max and Kunlun. If you speak vaguely, people won't get your meaning, and they'll be stuck pondering why so many people follow those who do not act upon the words that they speak (like "hey, I can turn invisible, whoops, did you really think I'd do it in front of people? No, silly, I'll only do it in front of a bunch of students who already believe me and would support me even if I did NOTHING!")

Depends on what criteria you're using. Ask a broad question, get a broad answer.

Nothing in particular. It's not about Kunlun. It's about the underlying mechanisms which take place regularly in spiritual communities, be they in real life or on the net. They occur time and time again. Some want proof, others don't care, others say it'll never happen, blah blah blah blah blah. Meanwhile there are people out there making claims which could easily be provable if they were real. Yesterday it was Max and Kunlun. Occasionally people dig up the old Kunlun horse to keep beating it to death. Tomorrow it will be something new. And there probably won't be any shred of evidence to show for all the spiritual goings on, because, oh, that's right: You do know that you could say the same thing about paranoid schizophrenics? They experience their own world with no need to prove it. They would rather convince people about it abstractly than actually proving it physically, because proving it physically might actually lead someone to a conclusion that doesn't support their own paranoia. So they might cherry pick some data, select a handful of experiences out of many, as evidence, but beyond that, you just won't get it, because you aren't in their heads, and they can't be bothered to take what's in their heads and spell it out for the rest of us.... So, yeah, I'm not really impressed by this post. And Cat, well, Cat was the first one to drop the L-word ("logic"), but I'm not really impressed with the logic so far

I'll assume you were talking to me.... I am not dedicated to debunking. And I'm not sure how you intended that term, but I do not think any "debunking" has gone on in this thread (I see "debunking" as meaning irrationally dismissing a conclusion- acting the skeptic, but disregarding any facts that go against the position you've already decided is the right one). In fact, I see in the spiritual community the OPPOSITE happening- people on the spiritual end go OUT OF THEIR WAY to provide reasons excuses for why they won't can't show any proof, despite how easy it'd be if only HALF of their claims were actually true. In order for there to be debunking going on, there would have to be some significant portions of evidence being ignored, but as it stands, only a few scraps of evidence are put forward, and they are shoddy at best (photos of "disappearing" people, for instance?) I, for one, make a very serious point to distinguish between what I believe to be true, what I hope to be true, what I want to be true, and what I can prove to be true. Now sometimes something that is true is something that you can't (or at least, it's very difficult to) prove. So I try to preface what I say with stuff like that. However, when it comes to many of the claims put forward by Kunlun, it wouldn't be that hard to actually prove them if it were true. It amazes me that this conversation has gone on for so long and NOBODY has really stepped forward. It amazes me how this conversation has gone on in one form or another for YEARS, and still we got nothing. All the promising candidates have fallen by the wayside, relying on the same old tricks and side stepping routines of those that have come before. Even if all of the members involved had an emotional revelation, and realized that Kunlun was the one true path to everything, that would do absolutely nothing in the way of providing evidence for any of the claims put forward, I hope you see that.

Well, yeah, because at a certain point you have to ask yourself: WHO IS DOING BACK FLIPS??? If it ain't the teacher, for whatever reason, then that's kind of fishy. If it ain't the students, but they swear, honest to God that the teacher can do a backflip and teach you one too.... well.... I'll ask you: Where is the logical basis for you thinking that this group of people can do/teach back flips? Well see thanks to things like the internet, we can gain a bunch of information and research whether or not something is true. This saves lots of time and money. Now in the old days, if you were sick and heard of a traveling doctor, you spend lots of time and money and travel risks to find this doctor, and it was a gamble of whether or not this doctor was real or one of the old snake oil salesmen (who may be much better marketed than a successful doctor!) But now we have lots of ways of verifying whether or not someone is skilled in their field. Sure, there are lots of highly qualified people who just don't have a lot of credentials from the usual sources (like universities), but in general, we like standards that provide us a measuring stick that we can apply to people- we know that medical school is pretty rough, that there's a certain degree of skill you'd need to get in, and to complete the program, add in some factors like where they went, and in what position they graduated in. But even after that, you'd like to find out how much experience the doctor has actually DOING stuff- how long they've been in practice, etc etc. Now you could argue some philosophical point that, well, you can never know for sure, that it could all be fake, that as soon as you get onto the operating table the person could freeze up and then you'd be dead.... meanwhile if you visited the "hack" who got kicked out of med school for being too brilliant was performing the operation by following along an instructional DVD, you ..... okay, well it's all possible.... but as long as we're talking about logical thought processes, you'd go with the guy who has verifiable credentials + a certain amount of actual experience. Now I think it's just silly that so many "internet skeptics" are called, by members of the spiritual community, a variety of names and terms. They're accused of being irrational, of just going after people, of sitting back, of expecting people to just hand them stuff, of being immature, and blah blah blah. But really, you gotta ask yourself- are they really being immature? Perhaps they are TOO mature! Perhaps they are well experienced in all the ways that one can carry out a fraud, and rather than wasting their hard earned money traveling halfway across the globe, just so they can do the "proper" thing and visit a master "in person", so the other spiritual seekers don't accuse them of being immature brats, they actually are quite cautious within whom they place their trust/faith. At the end of the day, SOMETHING has to get done. You can look the part. You can talk the part. But at the end of the day, if you can't PERFORM the part, then you are, well, not that part.

Quite easily. Here's an analogy- I believe that doing a backflip is possible. Do I believe you when you say that you can do a backflip? Do I believe you if you say you have a training method that can get you to do a backflip? We may all believe in enlightenment.... so what happens when someone has the reputation of being enlightened? We may all believe in some form of God.... so what happens when someone claims that God speaks through them? You can't just say something like, "I speak with God" or "I have a method of becoming enlightened", and then turn around and say, "if you believe in God or enlightenment, then you should believe me, and if you don't, why are you even talking to me about spirituality". That just doesn't make much sense. We all might agree that something exists conceptually. But if someone supposedly has it, if someone supposedly does it, then we'd have to go through a method of actually working out if they are who rumors say they are, and if they can do what they can supposedly do. In a case specific to Kunlun and Max, well, if Max has funky DNA, that should be checked, and the veracity of the claim can get gotten rather quickly. If people start disappearing from Kunlun practices, well, there should be some pretty clear evidence of that. And so on and so forth.