spyrelx

Shall we go? You and I while we can? Through the transitive nightfall of diamonds . . .

Just finished this book, which I read on Ian's recommendation above. It was awesome -- deep, complex, challenging and inspirational. I too highly recommend it. Thanks Ian.

All good points Taoist81. My own view is that "causal" retention doesn't cause many problems. By "casual" I mean the non-obsessive goal of trying not to ejaculate over a period of regular sexual activity, where in fact you do ejaculate once in a while. (E.g, you have sex 3 or 4 times a week and you come every few weeks. Or perhaps you retain up to a few months once in a while). I think that Keith's article is referring to what happens when people tend to get obsessive about it, maintaing for long periods of time while engaging in lots stimulation of of the sex organs. And I do think a lot of what the article references can be noticed even within 3 or 4 weeks of retention coupled with vigorous sexual activity. As I said earlier, a lot has to do with how one is channeling all that built up energy. I don't believe that the daoist spin on retention (that is, channelling the energy to various points in the body) causes any additional problems than the "mere retention" practiced by other systems. Indeed, channelling -- if it were actually done and done properly -- would tend to alleviate some of the stagnation issues mentioned in keith's article.

Nice essay, thanks. A few comments, You might want to mention methods for breaking up the stagnation. E.g., massage, strong physical exercise, increased meditation, etc. I think what's omitted in your essay (and in most "retention-bashing" articles) is any disscusion of the tremendous benefits that this practice provides, even for the "casual practitioner" (as most everyone is). First and foremost is the very real increase in both quality and length of sexual pleasure, for both the retainer and his partner. This is an extraordinary benefit of this practice and it's rare to find a man (or woman) who -- despite any other negative comments they might have --won't admit that this benefit is significant.

From his latest newsletter: There are two levels of intent in everything you do in Taoism and Chinese chi work. The first one is ordinary intent. The second level of intent is the place from which intent arises originally. That is, the place where intent is born. Any level of intent has a yin and yang component. If you want to walk across the street, that's a yang action because you have to go and do something. If you want something to come toward you, that's a yin form of intent. But then there's this question of where the intent comes from to begin with. Where do all your thoughts come from? Where do all your emotions come from? Where is the birthing room of yin and yang? Classic Chinese philosophy says that in the beginning there was the undifferentiated void called wu chi (wu ji). Wu chi held within itself all possibilities but was beyond needing to take form. However, in order for creation to come into existence, there needed to be a creative force. This force was called tai chi (taiji). Tai chi gives birth to yin and yang. Tai chi is neutral, neither, both, or. It has no qualities of its own, but it allows any yin and yang to take form. It is a level of emptiness that produces manifestation. The interplay of yin and yang is called liang i by the ancient Chinese. So, where does any thought, any emotion, any phenomena come from? If you have a psychic perception, where does it come from? If a thought comes into your mind, or an emotion comes into your body, where does it originate? The thought itself, the emotion itself, the psychic perception itself, or even the way karma occurs itself you could say always has a yin or a yang quality. It could be more yin and less yang or more yang and less yin, but one or both are always involved. You can break anything down from the most finite things that exist in quantum physics to the biggest things in the universe. The subconscious--a place that has thought--is still yin and yang. The place in the subconscious from where it is born, that's the Heart-Mind. It is not the subconscious itself rather the place that gives birth to the subconscious. On a human level, intent is normal intent but then the Heart-Mind is a phrase that is used both in Buddhism and Taoism. Taoism sometimes doesn't use the word Heart-Mind and sometimes uses the word spirit (shen). Buddhists always use Heart-Mind, Taoist sometimes use Heart-Mind and sometimes use spirit, but the fact is that they're interchangeable. I tend to use the term Heart-Mind because Buddhism is better known in the West, and I prefer to use common terms. Next issue: The Heart-Mind and the Subconscious (including inner dissolving).

See "The Secret of Seasons" thread. There is a link to the essay.

I don't know about responsible, but the penis drinking stuff is fairly well known amongst indian yogis. Hunting around on the net years ago I saw references to it and (though I've never seen it personally) many a backpacker that's been to India have seen it done. Actually, from what I remember reading, you start with water, then milk, honey, other stuff and you end up getting to some element (I think mercury but I'm not sure). But that stuff I read (which was internet and sketchy) implied that it was the actual practice of taking the mercury (or whatever element it was) into your body that was part of the alchemical process they were trying to achieve (in other words, not just a test to show proficiency). Probably, like a lot of other things, penis drinking is largely a physical exercise that can be learned. It's the linking of it with whatever other esoteric meditation, breathing, training, etc., that gives it value greater than a circus act. I doubt there is detailed stuff on that available in print.

I understand what you're saying Sean but, again, you're posting a link, on a discussion board, to a specific article. You have to assume that calling the attention of people on a discussion board to an article will likely make them discuss it on their board. You/David have more control over your board. Presumably you can shut down discussion if need be, etc. So maybe it's just better not to post these direct links and just say (as you've been saying), "you guys should check out David's forum". I don't think it's right to post an article (or a link to an article) and then try to impose (or even merely expect) an implied set of rules about how we're supposed to talk about it. I don't think it's fair -- or even realistic -- to post on a discussion board and then say "oh, but no one should argue with this, no one be sarcastic about it, no one say it's wrong". Don't get me wrong. I fully accept that you're posting this link to spread knowledge and coming from a position of altruism, but I'm also pretty sure any negative comments anyone puts up here about any of David's articles you've linked to are going to start another flame war. So I don't see any reason for you to be torn about it, or you or us to be subjected to stepping on each others toes again. Better just to say that David's got lots of good stuff to say and anyone who is interested should check out the forum. My suggestion is you remove the links. No offense intended (at all).

Good points. Sean's a mess. He's got this infantile need for attention, and he's obsessed with this place and being "controversial" and "provocative". And we all feed into it. We all try to correct him, try to bring him toward maturity. He's basically a lot of bad energy and I haven't seen any evidence here that I or anyone else on this board can do anything else about it. It's also wholly conceivable that half of what he says about himself, his history, his motives, david, etc. is complete fabrication. So you're not even interacting with anything real. Time perhaps to just let him rant in a corner by himself.

Sean can speak for himself (uh, I think he's established that by now). But I've been all over David's site and I haven't seen anyone say anything negative about it. Indeed some of the visitors there have quoted it extensively and no one's stepped in and said it's inaccurate, etc. Also, I believe (though could be wrong) that it was billed as an "authorized" biography. Finally, it's a very good read for anyone who's into this sort of thing. I'd highly reccomend it.

Oh, I can feel the love. I also notice there's about 8 people on line reading this thread right now. Don't you people have jobs or something?