Creation

Don't know anything about this but try: http://damo-qigong.net/project/iching/liuren.htm http://damo-qigong.net/project/iching/dunjia.htm Both sections have 4 pages, I think. I hope this helps.

I was listening to a classical guitar cover of To Zanarkand when I read this (still am) You continue to endear yourself to me SB.

Accumulated frustration. I have this tendency to view TTBs as my own personal reference, and you are not the first person whose posts I benefited from to delete a large number of their posts. But that's not the point. The point is thank you for the contribution you made. Whatever you want to do with your posts is OK by me.

All the negative crap on this forum doesn't really bother me. What bothers me is when good stuff gets deleted. Such a shame. I'm glad I got to read it once. I wish I would have read it again before it was erased. Thanks for the memories -O-.

My teachers are ganging up on me to tell me I don't know jack about reality... Or perhaps it's "Shut up and practice." That would be just like you two. But relaxing into good posture (not necessarily lotus, just erect) and the retention that I have managed to do has had a positive impact on my practice. So...

[Rephrased version of earlier question] So you would tell a beginning student that regulating posture and ejaculation will make absolutely no difference in their practice?

Please don't. What you have shared has been an incredible reality check for me. The notion of RESPONSIBILITY of both the student and the teacher that you convey is very important, and it simply would not come through without your descriptions of your experiences. I know it was hard for you to post what you did. Don't let that effort go to waste. (It's not like you are bragging about what you saw when your third eye opened or something )

Is there a way to view editing history? To make a "tentative edit" that doesn't go on the main page but can be compared with what is on the main page, which you can then approve? The way you spliced it doesn't flow right. But I can't just give a list of things for you to change...that's not efficacious for revising.

This has been asked before (of course) http://www.thetaobums.com/Questions-about-Wu-Wei-t9067.html I posted this in that thread: "Some thoughts on wu wei from B. K. Frantzis: http://www.energyarts.com/Articles/Bruce-s...Non-Action.html "

Unfortunately, I don't think the free online courses market is diversified enough to get a good (complete, video) course on advanced physics or mathematics yet. Let me know if you find anything. Seriously though, check out the Road to Reality (make sure to get a hardcover). And throw in the Feynman Lectures for good measure. That will get you the mathematical and physical perspectives (resp) from two masters. So much out there will focus on calculating eigenfunctions, etc. and I don't think that is what you are looking for. But if you are looking for a serious QM text, Introduction to Quantum Physics by French and Taylor is a good start, and if you are comfortable with the math already (functional analysis, etc.) try Shankar's Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Like you said, "alternative viewpoints" and in-depth foundational studies can wait. Just don't let your mind be warped past the elastic limit (as Julian Schwinger would say).

You're right. What I should have said is "How does the ancient Tibetan kingdom, the pre-Vedic Indic civilization, and the Vedic civilization relate to each other as far as the sharing of spiritual practices is concerned?"

I went to the guy whose channel it was on's site and he was talking about how circle walking comes from the Kunlun mountains. Actually, Kunlun is regarded as the birthplace of a lot of what became Taoism. And Kunlun is the border between China and Tibet, i.e. WAAAAY away from the heart of ancient China (by ancient standards). I used to blow Santi off when he said a lot of the old Chinese stuff goes back to ancient Bon, but I'm coming around to that point of view. Though I would prefer to phrase it as "They have a common root". The question then becomes how was that ancient kingdom of the Tibet connected to the ancient Vedic civilization.

That brings back memories. That video prompted my first cynical rant about physics on taobums. http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?s=&amp...ost&p=96018 And Mal, that graphic is brilliant.

Thanks. I do have a large dose of the Teacher in my personality. But as you know, mastering the raging demon that is my mind comes before undertaking the schooling I would need to become a professor.

Update: I joined the wiki's forum and posted some thoughts there on the talk page for Daoism.

I'll have to send in a revised version if it will be on a wiki. Less conversational, more name dropping, etc. Should I PM it to you? Still, I'm glad you think my ravings might be useful to someone.

By the way, I should warn everyone that my views about modern physics are not a majority view among actual theoretical physicists. Most physicists would tell you that vacuum fluctuations are real, period. And that modern cosmological/astrophysical models are basically correct, with only a few kinks to be worked out when quantum gravity comes along. OTOH, there are string theorists who will dismiss a new theory because it only has 3 spatial dimensions and no supersymmetry. Experiment being so far behind theory for so long will do that. Look at the Greeks... Oh the irony.

It is becoming clear to me that Tao teaches KAP in a way that is more up my alley. Does the discount for retaking KAP 1 apply to taking it with a different teacher?

Well, I'd love to help get the ball rolling but I don't like the idea of a collection of facts. So you'll have to make do with one of my characteristic rants. There are two types of religious Taoism: The community kind and the monastic kind. The community kind is where there are priests who train to be able to do spiritual tasks for the common people like exorcisms. Organized shamanism, in a sense. Monastic Taoism is a the kind where people cultivate themselves to reach "immortality" or "enlightenment" (they don't have to monks, it just seemed like a fitting name). Neither of them are necessarily derived from philosophical Taoism. (Note that there is overlap, because the priests of community Taoism have to cultivate. But it may not be to perfect themselves.) Community Taoist movements popped up from time to time in ancient China. Like the Yellow Turban Rebellion. Modern Community Taoism traces back to Zhang Daoling, who founded the Celestial Teacher's Way. What is his connection to philosophical Taoism? He says Laozi appeared to him and transmitted teachings to him. That's it. Monastic Taoism is harder to trace because guys cultivating caves did not always leave a mark. The Yellow Emperor, who lived over 4000 years ago, was said to be a high level cultivator. Presumably, Laozi was a high level cultivator and his philosophy grew out of his cultivation. Organized monastic Taoism only developed when the Buddhist model of monasteries and ordained monks was introduced to China. Now philosophical Taoism as a separate entity grew out of divorcing Laozi and Zhangzi's philosophy from their mysticism/cultivation and only thinking about what they said about morality and government. But all this stuff traces back to people cultivating themselves and seeking to understand the world and then applying their knowledge and power to government (philosophical Taoism) or helping people (community Taoism), not to mention developing sophisticated marital and healing arts.

Here are some first hand accounts of kundalini. http://books.google.com/books?id=_meUf86FO...;q=&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=cHBzcJmbi...;q=&f=false (Read 10-15 pages into each.) If it didn't feel like a nuclear bomb went off in your energy body, it wasn't kundalini

Sorry to perpetuate off-topic-ness, but I'm on a bit of a crusade to right the wrongs of popular science writing. About mass being created and destroyed on small time scales: These "zero-point" fluctuations are not observable. They were first hypothesized held to "exist" because of the great confusion that is the philosophical and mathematical foundations of quantum physics, and are thought to be "proven" because assuming they exist predicts the (experimentally verified) Casmir effect and accurately describes certain properties of electron orbits that quantum theory without the fluctuations cannot account for. Now these effects can be predicted with other models that don't have these unobservable fluctuations (fluctuation-dissipation theorem). So their "existence" is dubious. About black holes: A black hole is a region of spacetime from which a massive particle cannot escape. That doesn't mean it is a "void". It's just that something inside is cut off from communicating with the world outside. But life can go on inside just fine. Now, such an object develops a "singularity" in its gravitational field (proved by Roger Penrose, I believe). Hawking reversed this argument and said any universe with enough mass had to have a singularity at its beginning (big bang). (This is the first thing that Hawking got attention for.) These are mathematical consequences of general relativity. Now, is the way that GR models things applicable to these scales? No. Has anyone ever observed a black hole and seen if anyone's theories about them are correct? No. There are just distant objects that, given their observed properties, GR predicts should be black holes. Has anyone solved the equations of GR for a realistic configuration of mass falling into a realistic model of a black hole (i.e. not modeling both by points)? No. So most of the stuff about black holes, white holes, big bangs, universes branching off of each other, etc. is pure speculation. Hmmm... I was under the impression that Hawking radiation has never been experimentally observed. I mean, how could you observe it? Hawking once lamented that it was too bad it is near-impossible to observe, because if someone observed it he would definitely get a Nobel prize. Actually, since Hawking proved a singularity theorem (see above) I think you are a bit mixed up. Anyone who is interested in a comprehensive look at modern physics that does not confuse what is proven with what is currently fashionable to speculate about, check out Roger Penrose's The Road to Reality http://www.amazon.com/Road-Reality-Complet...7517&sr=8-1.

Yes indeed. Here are the primary references: http://damo-qigong.net/step5.htm http://damo-qigong.net/step5-1.htm

Re women in Taoism: There are a few highly respected female Taoist figures. Two who are definitely historical figures are Wei Huacun and Sun Bu'er. The are both immortals and founded lineages. Actually, Wei Huacun founded one of the most important (historically speaking) lineages, Shangqing or Maoshan. Re homosexuality in Taoism: Two (male) members of the Seven Sages of Bamboo Grove, Xi Kang and Ruan Ji, were said to have been lovers. I don't think they are considered celestial immortals or anything, instead being remembered as great poets and musicians, but they were cultivators of some ability.

Nobody cultivates in a vacuum. A high level teacher can teach by direct energetic transmission. Why would such a teacher do this for a person who would not use it rightly? If one is initiated into a lineage, it is only natural that the masters of the lineage will not let you access the knowledge and power in the lineage if they don't think will use it rightly. Of course, depending on your karma you can make progress without such help, and then perhaps virtue isn't so important for your cultivation. That does not mean it is not important at all, of course... I think many "virtues" at their root are not just rules, but go hand in hand with energetic and mental cultivation.

Up to the top with the best post on this forum in a loooooong time. This is truly golden advice. Thank you Sifu Jenny!