spyrelx

Look at that. Now I have to revise my whole mental image of you. I saw you out there and the desert staring into the sun, a couple of cacti in the background, etc. Now I'm seeing your surroundings as much more lush, with maybe some mountains in the background. Hell, even your clothes are different. Well, nice to have you on the east coast anyway.

Hey, I thought you were in Arizona. Have you moved to the east coast?

Hi all, I'm curious about what any of you know about the way monogamy has been treated in Chinese philosophy, religion and culture. I'm particularly interested in Daoism (which I suspect says little about it), Confucianism and Buddhism, but am open to any other views. No offence, but I'd rather stay clear of the High Status Male and Pick Up Artist views (you know who you are) or, frankly, people's personal opinions on the matter (though they are obviously welcome if you think they're relevant to the central theme). I'm really looking for the traditional religious, philosophic view is on the subject. For example, in Judaism and Christianity monogamy is taken very seriously. When a man and woman become a sexual couple they become "one flesh" and doing anything to interfere with that (including cheating on your spouse, divorce, etc.) is looked upon as immoral. Religion being flexible, there are always outs and caveats built up over time but that's the general view of it -- and any daoist on the board can probably see the "energetic" rationale for such a view. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Thanks Pietro. That's an interesting position (though I suspect that the Dalai Lama might claim that EVERYTHING is an illusion). And I didn't mean to close the topic. More discussion is completely welcome.

Thanks to everyone for the fine responses. Thaddeus, you hit me where I live.

Thanks for the article. Two quick thoughts: 1. Part of his objection seems to be that he is caught up in what in these traditions would ultimately be considered and illusion that one should not be caught up in. That is, the "I" that wants to experience, manipulate and be conscious of the experiences it's having. J)ust look at how many times he uses "I" or says "I want", etc.). 2. I often wonder from certain early stories about chia whether he had some real power that was quite noticable and that would actually help individual students achieve certain results and progress in meditation. Most stories about the early days (and not just by HT instructors) indicate pretty rapid results -- results I rarely experienced in HT classes.

Nice biblical digression. I don't have time to do the research right now, but I think that most scholars would agree that Judaism, from at least the time of the New Testament, was (1) very opposed to homosexuality (an abomination) and (2) also opposed to monogamy. Christianity has been opposed to both since the beginnings of that religion. The fact that powerful men throughout the ages have engaged in polygamy (sometimes with the tactic blessing of the reining religious order) doesn't mean it was approved by the religion. I'm pretty sure of this and can find sources for you if I get the time but really I wanted to focus on eastern stuff. Judging by your comments the taoist perspective seems to be "well, whatever works for you". Does anyone know the Buddhist perspective on this? Pietro to answer your question, I realize that I haven't been monogamous for most of my adult life, and lately I'm not particularly happy with that. And though I have a great list of rationalizations for my conduct, lately I'm starting to think that it's not very productive, or conducive to my own personal growth (not to mention the havoc it's reeked on others). Since daoism has made a lot of sense to me, I'm wondering what they think about this topic. Also, as I alluded to earlier, I think there's a very real energetic component to sex, which fits well with what I know about daoist esoterics. So I'm looking for guidance and wisdom on the topic, and turning to the Chinese, that ancient and subtle culture that has so many wise things to say about the human condition and the way to live our lives. David Bowie's "Modern Love" is playing as I write this. It fits somehow . . .

Thanks both of you. Pietro, who is Bruce? Do you mean Frantzis? (and thanks for refraining from PU POV). Sean, I haven't gone back to the bible for a while, but I think by the time of the new testament monogamy is pretty ingrained. Regardless, don't you both think from an energetic point of view anything other than monogomy (or celibacy) becomes a rather difficult undertaking. I mean it's hard enough to balance energy with one person, let alone multiple ones. And that's just energetic. I haven't even gotten into the emotional and psychological aspects of it.

Well, I guess that's as good a rationalization as any for a drinking problem. By the way, I recently finished reading the three Wandering Taoist books. In the forward or afterward (I forget which) the author (whose name escapes me -- hmm, maybe all that drinking?) says that when he got serious about chi gung he had to give up drinking, because he got too sensisitive to the alcohol. He quite enjoyed drinking but as he continued on his practice his body started rejecting it. Interesting . . .

Castanada is worth a whole other thread, but my general view is he was a charlatan who stole a lot of ideas from various places and made up a story. The fact that some of his borrowed ideas have value doesn't make him or his "movement" any more legitimate. Regarding power plants, they have a long history of usefullness in spiritual work, though I think most would agree they are very phyically draining, and that -- if you're trying to grow spiritually (as opposed to just getting high or having a new experience) -- they should be used sparringly and with care. Regarding alcohol (the original purpose of this thread), here are my thoughts: First, outside of poetry, I don't think there's too many traditions that view alcohol as a valuable tool for spiritual enlightenement. Second, I'm glad this thread was started because it's been on my mind lately. I find myself drinking more often and, somewhat paradoxically, being much more sensitive to alcohol than in the past. I can get looped pretty easily these days (e.g., one stiff drink) and, as I say, seem to be drinking somewhere between 3 and 6 nights a week (whereas in the past, maybe it was once a week or less). I notice my body more and find alcohol to be physically debilitating. I can have a few beers at 8 -- get tipsy -- and go to bed at midnight (no longer tipsy) and still have a pretty shitty sleep, and then wake up kind of stuffed up and groggy and be "off" most of the day. I also feel weaker the more I use alcohol. I'm surprised someone said it was yang because I feel like it depletes kidney energy (or perhaps that's what yang would do?). I also find it addictive. I'm by no means an alcoholic, but I do notice that, despite all the negative stuff I just said -- and the fact that I don't even enjoy getting tipsy that much -- that sometimes my body "wants" a drink. So in sum I think it's a pretty debilitating drug that should probably be avoided (if only I could). I'd be curious about other people's thoughts, particularly with respect to what it does to your body from a chinese medical perspective.

I've been trying to cut down on coffee myself. I'm lately partial to green tea. But there are a few brands of white tea that I've enjoyed as well. I think they all taste different, so you have to try different types and see what you like. For non-caffinated stuff I reccomend indian spice teas (note that many spice teas are made with black tea - i.e., have caffene). I'm partial to Celestial Seasonings Bengal Spice but you need to find the one you like as they are all different. I like to put powdered milk and a spot of honey in it -- complete heaven. (I use powdered goat's milk for an earthier taste but regular milk would be fine. It's best not to use fat-free milk however, as the fat gives it all the richness). Enjoy.

A car starts because there is gasoline in it. With gasoline, it can run. Without it, it can't. That's why a car starts. Write all the poetry you want. Believe what comforts you as you wither. You want to know about jing, look to gasoline. Thanks Trunk. Sunshine, everything I said was pure taoist cannon. On this subject there is little disagreement between TCM and virtually all schools of taoist teaching. Ryan, I gave you my best advice, I've no more to say in this thread.

As poetic and eloquent as that post was, I think meow is very very very mistaken. I have read, studied and practice this stuff a fair amount and I have never encountered any traditional taoist or TCM teaching that would charactarize jing like that, not by a long shot. Jing is not memory. It is not some jungian concept. Jing is energy, pure and simple. Though it is probably a misnomer to call jing "sexual energy", it is axiomatic in TCM that jing is connected and the source of your sexual energy and also that it can be lost, at least for men, through careless sexual practice. Any male who has practiced daoism and watched their own body knows this to be true. Indeed, meow's post was so willfully ignorant of this fact that I suspect meow to be female (who, in TCM view, generally might or might not loose jing during sex so, like she said, it'd be "true some of the time for some people"). Of course one can argue -- from a TCM theoretical standpoint -- that a man can reach a level where ejaculation will have a negligible effect on his jing. But it is highligh unlikely anyone on this board has reached that level, and certainly not Ryan, the guy who asked the initial question. TCM would say you've got a limited amount of jing, so don't waste it. Though some schools have detailed and rigorous practices to increase your jing (while other schools would argue it's impossible), NO ONE would be so flippant as to propose that by "just remembering we're from stars" our jing will be flowing and abundant. Ryan, regarding your specific question about Master Chuen, I don't know, but that book (which is one of my favorites) is meant very much for a mass audience of westerners and is teaching a very specific practice. It may be that he didn't think it relevant to his audience given the limited nature of what he was teaching. Regarding why sometimes you can hold off and sometimes you can't, there are countless reasons, many of which I am aware of and many of which I'm sure I am ignorant of. I do know that the more you practice and get familiar with and listen to your own body, the more you should have control. Regarding specific methods, if you've never tried anything than Chia's methods are as good a place to start (I'm one of the few defenders here of the MultiOrgasmic Man book). There are other hawkers of seminal retention methods. If you're like most you need to go through a number of them before settling on a coctail of practices that work for you.

As I said, the "long term" truth. Everything is contextual.

The stock market will be higher than it is today. That has been the long term truth of the stock market since it's inception.

I love that. Regarding 2012, I remember a comic strip I saw once. It had three panels. Each panel had a wizened old guru holding up a sign on a crowded city street. People rushed around him not paying any attention to him or his sign. Each panel was exactly the same except for the sign. The sign he held in the first panel read "The world will end tomorrow" In the second panel it read "The world will end today" And then in the third "The world ended yesterday" That pretty much sums up my views on 2012.

Don't you all think that Buddhism influence Taoism more than the other way around? I mean the complete reality guys (i.e., northern school) seem heavily influenced by buddhist concepts. All that praise of stillness, stillness meditation, etc. Also, the concept of living within certain moral and ethical parameters that are emphasized (both in certain taoist spiritual lineages and in many daoist martial arts lineages) seem related more to buddhism (and confusionism) than any original aspects of daoism.

Thanks Max. This seem to be one of the rare instances where we are in complete agreement. (Jesus, I'm in complete agreement with both you and Sean. If I find myself agreeing with Plato and Winn anytime soon, my work on this planet is done). For my part, I'm not concerned about achieving any sort of supernatural power (I mean, it would be cool, but it hardly drives me). In a world of guns and the internet, the ability to knock over a brick from 20 feet doesn't really amount to a skill I feel is relevant. However, what I've described as "Sean's argument" has a certain appeal to me. That is, "if you find a lineage that consistently produces students that are able to do these things as a side effect to their spiritual training, then their spiritual training regimen is genuine and effective". This is why I for one keep circling around to the "proof" issue. David and his teachers claim they can do supernatural things -- and claim anyone that does their training can achieve similar capabilities. If that's true then I'm on board because it's likely that their spiritual training regimen is genuine and effective. And I for one very much want a spiritual regimen that is genuine and effective. But of course the whole issue is whether its true. If the first part is true (can do supernatural things) then, knowing a bit about Sean, David, etc., I'm willing to accept on faith that the second part is true (they can teach it). If they're faking the first part, it obviously calls into question the integrity of everything they've presented. That's why "proof" of special powers becomes important to me here. Certainly I accept the fact (unlike perhaps Sean and others) that a valid and effective spiritual path can be one that doesn't manifest ANY supernatural powers, and that there are very capable and powerful teachers who don't have, or teach, such powers. I've studied briefly with a few and hold them in respect. It's just that David and his ilk are claiming to be in a different catagory. One final thought, and it's one that troubles me. The ancient Greeks had an amazing system of astronomy. They mapped the stars, planets, etc. and could predict certain celestial events with pinpoint accuracy. And their whole system was premised on the mistaken belief that the sun revolved around the earth. It wasn't until the Rennasaince -- with the advent of more sophisticated scientific tools and mathematics -- that their system of astronomy started to look flawed. Finally Gallileo and others proved their central beliefs were mistaken, even though their skills (mapping stars, predicting things) would yield consistently correct results time after time. Why is this relevant? Consider the ambiguous nature of any spiritual system. Let's say it's indisputable that Wang Li Ping can levitate and move inatimate objects with his will. Let's say he can teach anyone to do that with 10 years of rigorous spiritual training. Wang Li Ping could still be completely mistaken about much of the philisophical rubric he puts around these effects. His "manifestations" might be verifiable and teachable, but his interpretation -- energy body, daoist immortals, whatever -- might be dead wrong, a completely flawed explanation about what's happening. Just like the ancient Greeks. OK, that's enough. I'm done for the day. Go Bears!

I did it once. I think it's an interesting thing to do, but it didn't do much for me. First, I always felt the water was just a tad too cold (which might be more about my own body tempature than anything else). Second, I seemed to drift into the sides a lot, which was a bit distracting (better when you're just floating in "open water"). Third, I always felt my neck wasn't comfortable -- that I should have had some sort of floating pillow (they provided one but it didn't really work for me). The freakiest thing that happend (and frankly what made the experience most memorable) was that at some point I started freaking out that maybe there was some snake, etc in the tank that could attack me. Now mind you I'm in about 12 inches of still water and I've seen the whole tub before the lights went out. I knew it was a ridiculous fear, but it was STRONG. It was all I could do not to jump up and turn on the lights. Very weird.

Thanks Sean. For the record I don't think sucking up anything with your penis qualifies as a supernatural event. It's just physical training and wholly within the realm of generally accepted biophysics. (Though I would like to see that video when ever you get around to shooting it.) I take it from your response that you've never seen David do anything supernatural but have seen some of John Chang's students do supernatural feats. I'd be interested in hearing more about that but if you're sick of all the questions you can leave us all in mystery. Thanks again.

Sean, I think we've reached complete agreement, and I appreciate your response. Since you're closer to both David and the Mo Pai tradition than most of us here, I wonder if you could answer a few more questions about what you've experienced. For instance, My reccolection is that David's foundation practice takes about 2 years before people might start to demonstrate telekenetic ability. How long have you been practicing and have you noticed any such ability? (I assume it's too early to tell but just wondering). Also, I assume that David is close to completion of foundation practice (or beyond it). Have you seen him exhibit any telekentic ability? Finally, you were studying Mo Pai for a while, did you see any students there demonstrate supernatural abilities? Thanks.

Just a few things and then I'll drop this I have no idea what you mean by "internalize", let alone "over internalize", or the import of the rest of that sentence. As I said, you've been pretty consistent with your arguments, both here and on the HT board. It's rare that you jump into a discussion without hitting those three points I highlighted. Since we both seem to be seeking spiritual growth, and since you passionately argue for a certain path, a path I'm also thinking about pursuing, it concerns me when you appear to contradict yourself. Maybe that's all true but, again, it's rare that you don't hit those three points in one form or another. Indeed, I first became aware of you precisely because you were on the HT board to advertise David's teachings. I think your initial postings on here were similar but I'm not sure. You also run his website, have its url on your signature here, etc. As I said before, it doesn't bother me that you make the arguments you make, or even that you want to share the opportunity to study with David. But I think you can certainly be seen as promoting his upcomming classes. If you don't think you are you might want to reexamine what you're putting out. I am young, but not nearly as young as you are. Regarding the numbers, a few thousand dollars would be two or three, which would be the Denmark class. China would be six or seven, not counting airfare. I don't consider either a small fortune, but I do consider them considerably higher than what most people would charge for a two week class. So before I'd spend it I'd at least want to feel relatively secure that it was worth it. It is also astounding to me that you or anyone else would spend $10,000 on HT programs. Let's say the china class costs $7,000 per person. In a place like china, it's inconceivable to me that the actual expenses of running that class for three weeks (space, food, etc.) would cost more than $2,000 (it's probably much much less). Which means there's at least $5,000 profit per student. Let's say 10 students go. That's at least $50,000 profit for three weeks. If this money is for David's master (as he's strongly implied it is) then I'd say that is an extraordinary amount of money in a country like China, even with their current economy. A simply astounding amount of cash. Assuming the Wang LiPing lineage isn't the only true teaching, then I'd also say there are many many teachers "worth their salt" who would charge a lot less, particularly in china. Obvioiusly David can charge what he wants. And I agree with you that one could view a beneficial transmission as "priceless". But I think it's perfectly rational to ask a lot of questions ("to sit here asking for proof" as you might say) before taking such a costly plunge. As you say, it's not for everybody. Indeed, I would add that, at those admission prices, it's only either for the foolish, or for those who have done their research and satisfied themselves that it's the right path to pursue.

Actually, maintaining balance and composure whilst dating a super model is probably the toughest trick he's done. The most amazing thing to me was that he paid $67 million for an island. I mean who knew he had that kind of money? And all his tricks are so lame. No wonder people go into that racket. Hey Thaddeus, I've heard all different views on what "chi" actually is. Blood is one. Negative ions is another. Electromagnetism is a particularly popular one. Then there's the theory that it's really a phenomena that is identifying a number of electromagnetic and psyiological processes. My personal favorite these days is "none of the above". That is, it's an energy that manifests itself as certain changes in the body, but it is not those changes. (Gravity is not the apple that falls, it is the force that is making it fall. We measure the strength of that force by observing the apple, but neither the apple nor its movement is gravity). I'm not an expert, but I don't think TCM would disagree.