spyrelx

Thadeus, Not sure if we're miscommunicating. Regarding moving chi in your body, that IS personal experience, but it's either pure imagination or there's actually energy that's moving that we can feel. Most of us believe that's real energy there, an energy that most psyiologists deny exists. I mean, I'm imagining right now that there's a little guy named Homer is sitting on a mushroom inside my belly. He's waving at me. That's pure imagination. Now I'm focusing on my dan tien and feeling energy gather there. I say that's real -- that energy actually is gathering there. Not blood, not some trick of my nerve endings, actual chi. Most doctors would disagree, and see little difference between Homer and my experience of chi. Regarding moving things, etc., what I'm saying is I'm not assuming anyone is a liar that say's they're moving stuff by chi. So I'm NOT assuming that the guy moving water or knocking over bricks is faking. On the other hand, I'm not convinced it's real. I'm keeping an open mind but, frankly, find it hard to believe, so I'd like to see some more proof. The guy knocking over bricks is a good example of this whole problem. Every time he comes up Sean glibly mentions that he's one of David's teachers. I.e., Sean is soooooo sure this guy is for real and not the circus performer he appears to be on the video. So we have a guy doing what appears to be cheap magic tricks and -- not only is the guy himself claiming he's for real -- but we have a kind of second or third hand assurance that he is, in fact, real. (i.e., Sean wouldn't lie to us, and David wouldn't lie to him. And David says this guy is real). But (to my eye) he looks ridiculous. Like a real tremendous fake. So where do I come out? I say, gee, that looks pretty fake, maybe it's possible, but because it's so out there I'd like to see some really hard evidence of that. That's all I'm saying.

I don't know. I'm a pretty big skeptic, and a pretty big believer in having stringent scientific tests (e.g., that harvard study on Tumo that someone posted). But I disagree with the position "when you can't see how it's done, why assume the most magical explanation?". I mean, the person who is showing the effect (and presumably knows the most about how it works) is CLAIMING a supernatural explanation. Some credence should be given to their stated views. In other words, to automatically REJECT a supernatural explanation is to start with the bias that the guy doing the effect is a liar. So I think that's unbalanced. If you asked those monks how they dried sheets they would have told you meditation generaged chi/heat. That was their story. That was their explanation. One could automatically think "well, they're just a bunch of charlatans, that they've got trick sheets, etc." But in fact, that wasn't the case. In fact, their "supernatural" explanation seems to be dead on. So if you had assumed magic, you would have been correct. If you had assumed trickery, you would have been wrong. Most people on this board believe in stuff that the average guy would consider supernatural (e.g., moving chi around your body). So we already accept the possiblity of "magic". It's just that some of us draw the line of ready acceptance at different places. (e.g, I start to draw the line at people moving things without touching them. I just don't buy it and need more proof. Others like Sean D, Max, etc. don't draw the line there and readily accept extraordinary demonstrations as true without any need for additional proof). Personally, I think it's completely valid to ask for more proof. Indeed, I think it's both smart and beneficial to all to do so. But I think to start with the assumption that all these guys are liars goes a bit too far.

Do you know how to get there by public transport from Manhattan?

Your welcome.

Sean, For my part, I accept your apology. I consider any sins you've committed against me (real or imagined) to be absolved. The slate is now clean. What you choose to write on it going forward is up to you. And please don't take the following as an attack against you, your beliefs, the Buddah, David Shen or Uri Geller: You are NOT the sexiest man here. That title belongs to the other Sean (our webmaster). Always has, and always will. Peace out right back at ya. spyrelx

Erik, Have tried to post a personal message to you here but the system says you don't exist (!). I'm on the Lower East Side and can meet up today (Monday) for lunch or afternoon tea if you've got the time (no big deal if you don't). Send me a message if you wan to hook up.

I'd like to meet up with any and all tao bums that are hanging in NYC this chilly week. Plato I know, the rest of you I don't but would like to. Perhaps we could all have some cheap chinese food, or hang out at a cafe? (my new favorite is Rapture at 200 Ave A). For my part, I'm free today (Sunday) and Monday, and then I'm pretty much only available after 6 for the rest of the week. What timing works for you all?

This is precisely why John Chang and everyone Sean Denty raves about gives me pause. Anyone hooked up to a battery can give someone an electric shock. I mean, how many people who've gotten electric shocks and otherwise felt chi from 'masters' have actually been so bold as to pat them down or make them take their clothes off to verify there's no fakery? Usually the guy is doing this in front of a bunch of true believers who would probably 'feel' a shock even if none occurred. So no one is going to challenge him. I should mention though that David Shen made a brief but funny comment on his site about making one of these guys do it to him naked. And David strikes me as a guy whose been around the block. So I imagine there's some real guys out there. Still it's pretty frustrating that with all the people out there who are seemingly willing to demonstrate their powers (not to mention all the utube videos) there doesn't appear to be any contrlled study of this phenomenon (i.e., in a lab setting that would preclude fakery).

Yoda, I just want to reiterate a cautionary tale that I've told before. I tried he show wu a few years ago (in powdered capsule form). I kept at it for a few months mostly because I was curious if it would do anything for the grey hair I was getting. It didn't and I didn't really feel any effects. However, I had a major physical around that time (blood tests, the whole thing) and my doctor freaked. He said I had the depleted liver readings of an alcoholic. He asked if I was binge drinking or doing any other weird thing and I said no. So he said, maybe its a fluke, let's just test you again in a few weeks. After that meeting I thought about the he show wu and did some more research. Among other things it's known a a liver cleansing herb. There are also one or two people in the medical literature who have died from it with symptoms of hepatitis (these people were taking large amounts). There's also stuff in the literature about the difference between the raw version (not so good for you) and the cooked or prepared version (which I think is black and is supposed to be better for you). I stopped taking it and three weeks later when I got my blood work done again my readings were normal. I don't know if the herb was responsible but I've stayed away from it since. Plato swears by the stuff though and has probably drunk an ocean of the bottled stuff they sell in chinatown, so I suspect it can be safe in some forms for some physiologies. All I'm saying is if you're going to start eating it like candy you might want to keep an eye on your liver and perhaps even get some blood readings a few months down the road. good luck.

Lovely post Michael.

I can't shake the idea that the MCO is very important. But I also can't shake the idea that it's a rather advanced practice. Or to put it more accurately, a rather advanced effect. Here's where I come out. The orbit exists. Energy is flowing through it all the time. When daoists traditionally talked about opening the MCO what they meant was achieving a state where blockages were cleared and there was an extraordinary amount of energy running through it. Once you achieved this effect it was quite noticable, and long-lasting or even permenent. For instance, the Sifu Wong guys don't even practice the orbit. They say once you reach a certain level it opens up spontaneously (or with just the smallest amount of help) and stays that way, giving you virtually boundless energy and unlimited health. Bodri is probably in a similar camp. But that's generally not our experience (or at least not mine). Ours is "well, I kind of felt it today but not yesterday" or "I feel it but it's kind of weak today" or "I feel most of it but I think I'm a little blocked here", etc. This is not the experience writte about in the daoist texts. So the question is why. I think Chia took the concept of the MCO and said, "OK, why not allow anyone to do what advanced practitioneers do -- mentally run energy through the orbit". He recognized it was a major pathway and -- like the dan tien -- a sort of safe repository for any energy his practices might generate. And I think Chia's right. There's nothing wrong with exploring it and moving energy through it (to the extent you have any significant energy and to the extent you have the skill to move it). That probably is good for you and perhaps even over time "washes the channel" and improves your health, energy, etc. And it is very chinese -- a little bit every day for years and (perhaps) all of a sudden you've got an open pathway. But I'm not sure Chia's MCO meditations will ever accomplish the "boundless energy and unlimited health" that was traditionally meant by opening the channel. For that you may need other other practices and disciplines which have (a) already built up huge amounts of energy and ( already cleaned your system significantly. Just my thoughts. Not having boundless energy and unlimited health, I can't speak with any real authority on this. spyrelx

I just downloaded some Steve Martin. I forgot how funny he was. Not sure you want a bunch of teary eyed belly laughs while driving though.

Yeah, I've been interested in iboga myself, but i think you have to go to Africa to find out (or at least hang out in different circles than I do). snomon, I'm not studying with anyone right now. I've decided to simplify. I took a seminar from Sifu Wong a few weeks ago and I'm doing his chi kung every morning and (sometimes) evening. I'm also trying to do about a half hour of sitting meditation a day (mostly empty mind but throwing in some Healing Tao stuff once in a while). I decided I wanted to hammer away at a few simple practices and also build up my practice time, so this seemed like a way to do it. I'd like to start experimenting with a martial art in the new year, for structural alignment and exercise rather than fighting. The Sifu Wong guys in NY might start giving a kung fu class so perhaps I'll end up there. Always looking for stuff though, so if you've got a class you like, do let me know. Hmmm, you're in NYC? That makes you, me, thaddeus and plato? Am I missing anyone?

"There are differences between what Robert Peng does and the teaching within the Lei Shan Dao. The main one being that in Lei Shan Dao the goal is liberation and enlightenment (not necessarely the case with other methods)." Sean, what do you mean by liberation and enlightenment? My understanding is that Lei Shan Dao electric phenomena occurs because the practitioner has built up sufficient energy in the dan tien which, frankly, can then be used or not used for a variety of purposes. I'm not sure that liberation or enlightenment are really relevant to that ernergy build up. If this build up is just an initial stage toward liberation, then again I ask the question, what do you mean by liberation? (And how is that different, if at all, from what you mean by enlightenment?).

I've read Sexual Teachings of the Green Dragon, and flipped through the White Tigress book. My general view is that the author is full of shit. I wouldn't waste my time.

Wayfarer 61, I agree completely. Cloud Recluse, have you ever tried iboga or are you just talking from what you've heard/read?

Every time this topic comes up I am astounded at the lack of experience on this board with psychedelics. You'd think a bunch of cosmic adventurers like the tao bums would be all over this. I mean you've all proved yourselves to be seekers of the mystic, and experimenters with all manner of questionable, laughable, anti-establishment, and flat-out weird practices. Yet when it comes to drugs most of you are like "uh, no, I mean I think I SAW some marijuana at a party once . . . " Sheesh people, I know most of you are Reagan-youth (or Bush-youth) but you also live in a post-1960's world. FEED YOUR HEAD! About Ayahuasca, I haven't had personal experience but I was in Latin America a few months ago and talked to a number of people who had. It's a powerful drug and has a reputation for being a bit rough to take. It's also know for having very different effects on different people. One person, who'd been to a lot of ceremonies, told me "5 people will take the same batch at a ceremony, one will fall asleep, one will vomit all night, one will shit all night, one will feel OK, one will talk with God for 8 hours". In my last trip to Latin America I took part in a San Pedro ceremony. San Pedro is a cactus with hallucinogenic properties. It is, I think, chemically related to mescaline but I'm not sure. San Pedro is known as being gentler than Ayhuasca and maybe it is, but it was pretty powerful in its own right. If you're going with "natural" substances, then mushrooms (various types), San Pedro, Ayhuasca, real mescaline are probably the easiest to get. In the US by far the easiest of these would be mushrooms. And then there's acid, which I would reccomend to anybody looking for a psychedelic experience. Maybe not "natural" like shrooms, but from my experience, often more enjoyable. Remember what the door mouse said . . .

Do you know if it helps with back pain? Particularly disc stuff? Also, what happens when you stop taking it, does the pain come back? (I.e., is it like asprin or like a cure?). Thanks,

In one of David Shen's writings he made a point of saying that people that practice daosm -- even accomplished masters -- generally don't live any longer than anyone else. I thought this an astounding bit of both candor and sanity from a guy who I suspect has researched this stuff far more extensively -- and obsessively -- than most of us. I am also rememinded of Frank Sinatra, who smoked, drank and whored his way around the world -- and died in his 90's, outliving most "daoist masters". I'd like to think that chi kung, etc makes the quality of your life generally better, even if it doesn't expand your overall life span. At least that's the theory I'm going with these days. It would be a shame though if all these foolish looking exercises I'm doing were all for naught. OK, that's it for now. I'm off to mix a batch of martinis and crank up "My Way".

Thanks as well Sean. I left you a PM.

That wasn't a rehtorical question. You published an essay that started strong and veered off into complete incoherence. The "not the highest state" language being only one example. If you're going to be making "moses down from the mountain" statements (which you tend to do a lot), you should back them up with some well reasoned explanation (lest you look like a guy who parrots a lot of stuff he's read without any real understanding).

"Ian Baker"? Isn't he Uma's dad? Why would he change his name from Ian Baker?

I agree with Thad. One of the best cities on the planet.

"yet it is not the highest state of conciousness attainable". What is?