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?

I'm in NY Pietro. Not sure I can host you but would love to meet up if you like. Hell, maybe Sean Denty will be in town and we can all grab that cup of coffee Sean's been so adamant about telling everyone about. Send me a pm when your close to arriving if you'd like to hook up.

Jesus Sean I don't know how anyone could be this messed up. I'm not ashamed of inviting you to have coffee in NY or trying to take a discussion about someone I thought was disturbed off line. Why should I be? I tell you you're comming across as nasty and discrediting your teachers and you (i) call me names, (ii) insult me for wanting to meet you and (iii) publish a private message that -- if it has any effect at all in its public airing -- might be a bit hurtful and insulting to Darin, a guy who wasn't even part of this thread. You actions are doing nothing but generating ill will. You are discrediting David and his masters.

Sean, I've said all this before but I'll say it again. First, you may think what you're projecting is that you're engaging in serious debate but what comes across to most people on this board is anger, ego and a desire to ridicule. You can say "oh you can't take a joke", "I'm just being provocative so that you'll wake up" or whatever, but if what you're getting across to the other party is anger, ego and a desire to ridicule you are, by definition, not engaging the other party in serious debate. Second, you do represent David, and his masters. You mention and/or recommend David with almost every post, and every post carries links to your forum and other information about David and his teachings. So you do represent David, and his masters -- and anger, ego and a desire to ridicule (or, if you like, a consistent inability to get your true meaning across) discredits them. You are of course entitled to call me a dork again, or say something else disrespectful and adolescent. But it WON'T be engaging in serious debate, and it WILL be discrediting your lineage.

Sean, I think you should take the guy seriously. I think you've crossed the line with him many times, and should make amends. You can cop the attitude that it doesn't matter if you shit all over people in cybyerspace, that you don't have to respect anyone's version of propriety. Just like I can cop the attitude that it doesn't matter if I take David's teachings and distribute them all over cyberspace, that I don't have to respect his version of propriety. But both actions would be just what they sound like, a lack of respect for a fellow human being. I think you should apologize and make amends. Maybe nothing will come of this. But if he hurts you I think it's wholly of your own making.

Well, I guess we can add homophobia to your list of notable attributes.

Daoist Immortal #1: Hey, how many Pietro's does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Daoist Immortal #2: I don't know, how many? Daoist Immortal #1: Six. One to screw it in, and the other five to wonder if they're watching sex or pornography! HO HO HO --- Daoist Immortal #2 falls off his cloud, and then . . . Daoist Immortal #2: Wait, wait, now I've got one -- how may Pietro's does it take to screw in a lightbulb? Daoist Immortal #1: OK, I'll bite, how many? Daoist Immortal #2: He NEVER get's to screw it in. Every time he sees the socket he wants to stick his dick in there!!!! ~~~~~~ HO HO HO HO HO HO HO ~~~~~

I wouldn't have put it quite so nasty (I mean, it is pretty nasty Pietro), but I think Pietro raises a lot of good points. I'm not expecting Sean to hear any of them, or to respond with anything but his trademark bile and smugness. But I would suggest the rest of you give the above a good read.