Creation

FYI, The method he recommends for working with the downward flow is almost identical to Frantzis' dissolving. It is encouraging to know that he did not find dissolving and kundalini to be opposing process (cf. Taomeow), but complementary ones. His description of having the the watery flow going downward kundlaini pumping up the center and is very much in line with Tao's recommendation to have everything else flowing down while kundalini is flowing up. It is encouraging to know that someone else had success with this as opposed to insisting that it is impossible (again, cf. Taomeow).

Hehe...so cute. Congratulations! I liked at 3:37 when all four were on the attached to the string. And also, Battle Steeds Galloping Ahead is amazing... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hwumW28e7w

Hi Melanie. First of all, here is something I have observed. I think one of the biggest misunderstandings in the cosmology of the modern Christian is the idea that all spiritual beings are directly in the service of either to Yahweh or Satan, what they would call angel and demons. The spiritual world is much bigger and much less black and white than that. But parts of the Bible that suggest this (Genesis 6, Daniel) are more or less ignored by most theologians today. That was my experience when I was studying these things in earnest. My point is, incubi, succubi, demons, fallen angels, nephilim, etc. are all different types of beings. Now, about The Book of Enoch and canonicity. The Book of Enoch was very influential in Jesus' day, well known to all Jews. It is even quoted in the Epistle of Jude. But there is this idea of the canon, where there is one collection containing what are considered the most important, authentic, and authoritative books against which all other writings are to be measured. The book of Enoch was not included in the canon by Jews, even as influential as it was, because their standards were very strict. Christian standards were very high too. The Epistle of James almost did not make it in, and there was a 3 Peter that was not included because Christian leaders were not fully convinced it was authentic. My point is, it was not a slight to the Book of Enoch not to include it in the canon. But because it was not included in the canon used in Europe, it was forgotten with time. Actually, according to wiki, it is in the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. How about that! By the way, contrary to popular misconception, the Christian canon was not decided at the Council of Nicaea... But I think betwixter was right to point out that "Do not add..." technically only applies to Revelation and not the Bible, which is not a book so much as an anthology.

I thought I should point out that I am not trying to say "It's all the same". I was pointing out that I think all three ultimately spring from a the basic human mystical impulse, the desire to be free in a sense that goes far beyond the ordinary meaning of that word. Of course, that isn't even saying much because a lot of whacked out stuff comes from that impulse. I was merely providing a foil to Taomeow's insistence that Indic vs. Chinese paths are completely and totally different. Opening the chong mai is not kundalini awakening. You can open a channel in many ways, even the central channel. Chia and Winn send "the pearl" through it. A couple systems I've seen use special postures and mudras that bring energy in and cause it to flow along the desired path. And of course, there is always leading chi back and forth through the channel a great many times. None of these awaken your original chi or kundalini.

This is definitely true, Quanzhen being a case in point. Since Taomeow practices Quanzhen alchemy, I was wondering why she emphasized the differences instead of the similarities, if she thinks such cross-pollination compromises the fundamental essence of Taoism, and if so why does she practice those methods! I've been wanting to ask her that for a long time now, actually. There was a tradition of marital, healing, and meditative arts in China before Indian importation began. Ledgends say it came from the West, Kunlun mountains and all that. Makes you wonder about a Bon connection? But in so many ways the Chinese stuff is so very different than Indian and Tibetan stuff. Hmmmm... I know why you say Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism have different goals and in one sense I agree, but in another sense I think that they are basically driving at the same thing: liberation, freedom. One tradition goes further than another, or in a slightly different direction because of different ideas about the precise nature of the goal. Even so, many of the ideas are the same. Wisdom is wisdom, you know? Maybe that is the porridge that Taomeow warns against. But it is not only Westerners who feel that way.

Yes, please do. I will endeavor to keep my Western mind from lumping all things Eastern into a porridge. If you would, please address why the Lingbao Bifa, which you practice, emphasizes that the process of alchemy is jing->chi->shen and cultivates the dan tiens startting at the bottom and going up, and why the founders of Quanzhen emphasized that Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism had essentially the same goals, despite different methods (the "Three Ways" and all that).

Of all the systems geared toward complete beginners that you can learn on your own that I have seen, I would agree that Spring Forest is the best. However, there is a book and a 2-DVD set, which either was just released or will be available very soon, from B.K. Frantzis. http://www.energyarts.com/dragon-and-tiger-dvd/

OM NAMO GUAN SHI YIN Once again, back to topic. So for Taomeow and Eternal_Student, and anyone else who feels qualified to chime in: Is kundalini used in the Taoist traditions? They had to know about it, and it doesn't makes sense that they wouldn't have used it somehow, but perhaps not in the same way as in Yoga. In yoga they say the reversal of prana and apana (upward and downward flow) triggers the awakening of Kundalini (the primal energy latent in the human body). In Taoist alchemy they say the reversal of water and fire ignites the body's true chi (yang within yin). This sounds pretty similar to me, but not having personal experience with either it's just speculation. What do you think? Is this analogy just coincidental?

Big love to you. Now, back to topic. About Kate and Taomeow's exchange. I wanted to mention that it is not the dissolving techniques that makes a path Water or Fire. Frantzis says in one of his books that fire schools use dissolving, and many fire schools have the student develop the downward flow first for safety before bringing the energy up just like the water schools. The difference is that in a water school, you use awareness and dissolving progressively subtle aspects of your being until you get to pure consciousness, whereas in the fire schools, ramp up the energy and that takes deeper into your being. That is my present understanding, at least. Actually, in the video, Tao emphasizes that when kundalini is going up the central channel, you should be relaxing sinking all the chi in the rest of the body as a safety mechanism. And Frantzis' sinking, scanning, and dissolving techniques do just this. So I don't think it is quite fair to say that Kate using dissolving as silly as Taomeow suggested.

Vajrahridaya, This really touched me. Thank you. May your sincere desire for liberation carry you through your trials and lead you to unending bliss.

Two very good questions! I would like to hear Tao's thoughts on them as well. I would invite him here, but given how Santi and Susan have been treated here and how in this very thread there is trolling going on, I would feel like I was doing him a disservice.

rails, Ironically, I used to dread Vajrahridaya coming into every other thread and starting some debate about Buddhism vs. Everyone Else. Now, I am perfectly content to sometimes read and enjoy his posts, and other times skip them, but I now dread you coming into a thread to attack Vajrahridaya. Usually I just sigh about it, but this is one of the most interesting threads on here in a long time. Please do not troll Vajrahridaya here! Vajra, Please ignore rails if he continues to attack you in this thread, and elsewhere if you can. There is really no reason for you to respond to him most of the time. And thanks for not hijacking threads anymore. I really do enjoy many of you posts.

You know, I was thinking about this and I realized that physicists might sometimes loose their sense of wonder at the fact that this has ever been done at all. The first person to do it was Isaac Newton in the 17th century. I can just see a Taoist sage, when presented with the idea of such a mathematical theory like Newton's or Einstein's, saying "So what?" And if confronted with the modern idea of a Theory of Everything that would be a mathematical theory of all observed physical phenomena, he would probably erupt in hysterical laughter.

Hi Ramon. I love you. Just so you know. Our friendship was never in question. Now, the only name on that list that is particularly well regared in theoretical physics circles is Roger Penrose, who I respect almost as much as Bohm because of his willingness to go outside the mainstream and emphasize how phsycis needs to change, but I don't think he has ever made the jump to mysticism. Some of the other guys are at least professors of physics though. So, you are correct, there are some real deal physicists that have made the mystical connection. I happen to agree with you. This is a beautiful idea that I have thought a lot about. But from the perspective of hard science, it is VERY HARD to go from an idea like this to a full-fledged mathematical theory with predictive power. What people who are not trained in physics don't understand is what it means to have such a full-fledged theory. There can be no hand waving, the theory must have equations that accurately account for precise measurements of the properties of the relevant objects. So the thing is to get from the idea to the full theory. The example of Einstein is particularly instructive on this point. It took him something like 8 years of working his ass off to get from his insight that gravity is related to the curvature of space to the complete mathematical theory that we call general relativity. No cakewalk, huh? Later, building on the work of Kaluza and Klein, he became enamored with the idea that a 5 dimensional space with the 5th dimension being a very small circle existing at every point in spacetime, could account for gravity, electromagnetism, and quantum mechanics all in one fell swoop. This is a very appealing idea. I mean WOW! But he worked on it off and on for 20 years at least and no matter how hard he tried, or how much the idea appealed to him, he simply could not get a full fledged mathematical theory that really unified all those things in the way he thought it should. So if Einstein worked for 20 years to make his pet idea work and couldn't do it, what does that say about everyone else with a cool idea ? Have a good one bro.

Hi Seth. What an exciting transition you are experiencing! I am wondering, was their some discernible cause or process that brought about this realization? Like how Vajrahridaya had his long web debates (Vajra, I'm sure there is more to that story and I would love to hear from you as well). Had you made an in-depth inquiry into the Buddhist view before, or was it mostly in the background of your consciousness until now?

Wonderful! This is the attitude I strive for as well.

Hi metal dog. I gave my reasons for not believing this particular Church cover-up conspiracy in my previous post. The Catholic Church has done some nefarious things. OTOH when I look at it from their perspective, a lot of the things they did don't seem as nefarious as our modern perspective makes them out to be. I try to keep an open mind and see multiple sides of every issue. In general I am not knowledgeable about Catholic conspiracy theories and the arguments for and against them. It does make sense that pagan knowledge was suppressed, but also much of it was incorporated. The hows and whys of all that is quite a complicated affair, spanning many centuries. Even with my love of history it seems wearisome to me to try to unravel it all. If you know of a well researched but engaging book that presents a balanced viewpoint on the subject, please do pass on the name.

Hi apepch7. The Book of Enoch talks about this stuff form the Ancient Hebrew perspective: http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/enoch.pdf (from p. 33 on) You said you like things verifiable, but you may nevertheless find these blog posts interesting. The author recalls some details of his training in a past life as an Egyptian general during the time of Akhenaten and thereafter. http://www.michaeljaco.com/2010/05/sacred-warfare/ http://www.michaeljaco.com/2010/04/alchemy/

After some 20 emails between us you say something like this to me? In the same sentence you imply that I don't actually have knowledge of hard physics, and then suggest that I claim mainstream science has all the answeres (which I most certainly don't)? Wow, bro. Your really laid me out... :lol: Seriously Ramon, the above quotes strike me not as a reaction to what I said, but a reaction to your projection onto what I said. If you will just project all your pet peeves onto me and argue with those, is it worth my energy to reply to you? Well, we were once friends, so for friendships sake, here are some things to ponder. Can you name a single accomplished physicist who promotes esoteric ideas being combined with physics? Or did you just hear that they existed? Perhaps you heard someone suggest connections between modern physics and mysticism and you inferred that there were accomplished physicists who promoted it? OK, hopefully you will take that as an invitation to only make claims that you are sure you can back up, and not as me trying to show you up. What I really want is to set a tone of intellectual integrity here, not get in a fight. I will name one such accomplish physicist: David Bohm. But he is the only one I know of. Others (Bohr, Heisenberg, Wigner) have suggested that certain philosophical ideas like Berkeley's "To be is to be perceived" are implied by quantum physics, but the connection between such philosophizing and the living esoteric traditions of the world is not something accomplished physicists are rushing to take. Now, spiritually minded people hear about this and make the connection themselves. Whereas physicists might muse about philosophy a bit, but at the end of the day the general attitude is, "Let's get back to doing real science." That is why Bohm's ideas were ignored by most physicists. Just so you know, I respect David Bohm more than any other physicist of his generation. I am very aware of the stifling and oppressive environment that exists in the modern scientific establishment. That is one reason why I gave up on my dream of getting a PhD. in math. I also believe, as you do, that the laws of physics as presently understood, are incomplete and are subject to revision (and indeed, will certainly be revised in the future). But I am also aware of the tremendous amount of nonsense out there coming from people who don't really know what they are talking about. Do you have an idea of what I am talking about? Have you experienced that? Perhaps someone telling you their theory about kundalini based on something they read in a book, but you, having been through kundalini, can clearly see that they do not really understand what they are talking about. But if you tell them this they and all their friends jump down your throat, saying "You're just repeating establishment dogma!" And you are thinking, "Um, is this person serious?" I think perhaps you root for the underdog, as do I, so you are more sympathetic to the guys outside the establishment, but remember there are two sides to the issue. About the Church issue...Once again you accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about leaving me wondering why you think you know what I know. If this guy wants to claim there is a conspiracy he can, and I admit that it is possible and I am not qualified (and neither is he) to say definitively one way or another. But I have my reasons for saying what I did, completely separate from the annoyance I feel toward Church cover up conspiracies. The main thrust of his argument is that the Church banned the use of the tritone in Church music, and he places great importance on the tritone and thinks the ancients did too, therefore the Church must have covered it up. Can you see why I might think this guy is just being overly imaginative? The Church did cover stuff up, but that doesn't mean that people should go off and see cover ups everywhere they look. Here are some things to consider from my store of lack of knowledge of what I am talking about. Musical knowledge was lost during the collapse of the Roman Empire because basically all culture was lost. Before this cultural collapse, a Christian philosopher named Boethius wrote a treatise on music in the pagan tradition and style (because that was all that existed) so the Church was not completely suppressing the pagan music tradition at that point. Now fast forward to when culture started seeping back into Europe. People were starting to experiment with the elementary laws of harmony. Try an experiment. Listen to the intervals perfect fourth, perfect fifth, major third, minor third, and tritone. Which of these sound conspicuously less "nice" than the others? The medieval musicians thought it was the tritone (so do I, but you should try it for yourself). So they said, "We don't want this in Church music, because it is discordant." Whence the conspiracy? Now fast forward several hundred years, when Western music has developed quite a bit. Composers began to understand that the tritone can be very useful. With their more sophisticated sense of musical harmony and style, they understood that there is more to music than nice intervals. But in very simple music, like what the medieval Church musicians were working with, it is completely understandable to make the tritone taboo. Of course, it doesn't matter what I THINK about his conspiracy theory, because it's clear I have no knowledge of the issue. How can I even have an opinion on the matter, right?

Hi Vajra and Mel. I used to feel presences in my room a lot at night. One time, in a dream I was praying with great fervor, and I woke up and felt something very powerful and benevolent behind me. It felt like it was reaching into my back and messing around in there. At some point in the future, I noticed two very deep scars on my lower back, the kind you would get from a surgical incision. Dark red, raised, several inches long. But I have never had surgery... I always wondered if these two events were related, because I have no other explanation of the scars. By the way, Welcome to the forum Mel. I hope you find what you are looking for here.

Thanks for sharing this unmike. There is a zeitgeist manifesting very strongly these days, where people sense that Western culture, for all it's achievements, is in many ways rotten, backward, and empty, and they hear about chaos theory, fractals, zero point energy, etc. and it strikes a chord with them, and their imagination gets going, thinking that looking at the world in light of these ideas is going to fix the backwardness and fill the emptiness. After years of doing this myself, I have come to the conclusion that this is fundamentally a case of mistaken identity. The allure of these ideas is that they give a sense of order, harmony, and unity in diversity but also wonder, hopefulness, and limitlessness. The mistake here, as I perceive it, is to identify the presence of these these wonderful feelings with the presence of ideas, that is, the mental construct or picture one has of the world. People have been making this mistake for all of human history (I still make it all the time, even as I point it out in others), but these days it is becoming more and more common to do it with (pseudo)scientific ideas. On second thought, that has been happening since the beginning of modern science, but it seems like it has changed recently, like more is being brought into the fold due to the increase of spiritual consciousness and the move away from strictly materialistic or strictly mind-matter dualistic philosophies. (That paragraph was very hard for me to write to my satisfaction...I hope my meaning managed to come through) So I have mixed feelings about this site. I am very interested in his stuff about music theory (the story about John Sheridan was priceless!), but I am not qualified to say if he is really on to something there. In the realm of physics, it seems to me that he seems fond of throwing around scientific terms that he clearly does not understand, sometimes in ways that make no sense at all. This tends to happen when an imaginative person reads popularizations of science and fills in the details with all their own fancies and fantasies. (It is especially clear that he is doing this whenever he mentions lattice QCD). I did this all the time when I was younger. Now that I have learned some serious math and physics, I look back on those days fondly, but I see such behavior for what it was. I am less inclined to sympathy when he starts talking about the conspiracy of the Roman Catholic Church to cover up ancient knowledge of harmonics. I lose my patience whenever something sound too much like a Dan Brown novel. I strongly suspect this is at best an exaggeration, but even if it did happen to some extent, I think it is not as big a deal as he makes it. On the other hand, Reading this gives me a sense of the paradigm shift that is coming. A new paradigm of thought that will completely change the way people relate to the world mentally. It will be HUGE. I feel this coming very strongly, but most of the stuff talking about zero point energy, crystals and harmonics and pyramids, and the connections between modern physics and esotericism that I see does not seem to me to really capture the spirit of it. This site, to some extent, for reasons that I do not fully understand, does. Perhaps it is the sense of integration of so many diverse ideas and disciplines into the fold. I think that unifying the currently fragmentary nature of human knowledge will be one of the chief characteristics of the coming shift.

Did you have to go to China to learn this stuff or did you find it in the States? There is a gentleman on who is teaching this stuff to English speakers in retreats on Wudang Shan. He talks about the waterwheel of 4-10 branches here http://damo-qigong.net/step7.htm And this also seems relevant, from B.K. Frantzis' Relaxing into Your Being: What a task! Now, I'm just a beginner, so here is a beginners question for you: There is the governing vessel, spinal cord, thrusting vessel, and central channel. Various authors identify two or more of these. Can you speak on where these are actually located relative to each other, and what the difference between them is? It's so exciting to pick the brain of a knowledgeable person.

Hi dmattwads. I wonder, why do you belive that it is better to have the lust energy stored in your dan tien rather than circulating? When you woke up the next day and were feeling stimulated it was probably all the lust energy stored it in your dan tien coming out. If you are around a bunch of angry people, would you store all the anger energy in your dan tien to not be overwhelmed by it? How about hate, anxiety, etc.? That sounds pretty unhealthy to me. But then again, what is the alternative? It seems like you need something to do in real time to neutralize the energies you are receiving (other than sitting in full lotus). If you just have the intention to neutralize it and let the energy freely do its thing, what would happen? (Easier said than done, right ) Does anyone have any real time neutralization suggestions?

From the Mawangdui scrolls: "When an erection is not full-size, that means the flesh is not energized. When it is full-size but not hard, that means the muscle is not energized. When it is hard but not hot, that means the mood is not there. When all three are energized, then penetration is possible." http://www.amazon.com/Sex-Health-Long-Life-Practice/dp/157062433X Those old Taoists really left no stone unturned

This sounds like the same idea: