RyanO

Haha nice I just read PaulW's post. Animals are awesome!

My mom's cats playing. A young playful male and an old crabby female. Freaking hysterical.

Hello All, I recently read Lomax's book, and thoroughly enjoyed it. It is more personal and inspirational than a book about technique. If one is reading it to learn technique then they will be disappointed, so it's not really fair to compare it to Frantzis' tomes. Lomax acknowledges at the beginning that this is not a typical qigong book since there are already many out there. There is some information on technique and practical application but that is not the focus of the book. The book resonated with me for this very reason, as my own experience with qigong has left me disinterested in the particulars of technique and more interested in the experience and the why of it. And this is a book about the experience. It has a lot of Heart. That's why I enjoyed it.

Another argument atheists use, besides debating these conclusions directly, is that just because an idea is useful, doesn't mean it's true.

Haha that made me laugh.

And Merry Imbolc, for all you pagans out there! Looks like Spring will come early this year: http://www.groundhog.org/

Vortex: Thanks, interesting stuff, I'll have to check out those names you mentioned. Sloppy: Haha yes, my style tends to take things to existential levels. I intentionally left out my personal views on the topic, I didn't want to get overly tangential, but from my chair Non does seem to be having a kind of existential despair. I know he has been on this board a while and brought up similar topics many times, and heard great advice many more times, seemingly not willing to take it for whatever reason. I'm sure he has different motivations for doing this. I agree with you that whatever realizations about reality Non has come to don't seem to have been positively interpreted by him, and that perhaps more beneficial takes on it are possible. However, keep in mind how difficult that might be, considering the circumstances. Sexual dissatisfaction is hard enough, but especially when combined with a nihilistic materialistic metaphysical view, which could be the case and the reason I brought it up. (Sorry to talk about you in third person, Non, if you're reading this, I know it can be aggravating)

I have to be quick so I don't have time to elaborate my views on the subject, but I thought I'd link a very interesting piece by Daniel Ingram: The Do Nothing And You Are Already There Schools. It's from his book Mastering the Core Teachings of the Buddha, which is available on pdf for free from his site. He has some rather biting criticism of such an approach. It's pretty interesting, as I've always been more on the you're already enlightened side (and still am in many ways), but his approach and tone are rather refreshing.

One's metaphysical understanding will certainly color their interpretation of this subject. Non invokes science and evolutionary theory to support his views. So do members of the seduction community, except they embrace these concepts and use them for their advantage. It sounds like Non isn't comfortable enough with this viewpoint to do this. Which is arguably a good thing. It is certainly true that people are very different, and while statistically speaking generalizations might be true, different people are attracted to different things. So there is hope for, say, a submissive man and a dominant woman to get together. But to me, Non's points are less about the specifics of attraction, and more about the nihilism of materialism, which is a grander and more cosmic problem. For instance, the idea that love is just an evolutionary mechanism and nothing more. So Non, and you might already be aware of this, it sounds like this issue is bringing up more existential problems than just the specifics of sexual attraction. The fact that you're complaining about it (ie materialism) means that either a) you think there is a chance that it's not true or b ) you are fighting against reality. Just some thoughts.

Haha or they could change the title too "The most killer Nei Jia shirt I have ever sold!"

Was overcast here. Bummer. Didn't matter though, totally felt it! Happy Winter Solstice!

The severity of pain in full lotus sure is an...interesting marker of spiritual advancement. Since more girls can do it than men, does that mean they are more spiritual advanced? Haha I guess they probably are! Still... I think it is also interesting that you say people who can sit in full lotus easily before FD have problems if they begin cultivating in this religion. Hmm... It reminds me of religious flagellation, etc. Doesn't seem like a healthy perspective to me.

Just to be clear, Winn does still advocate balanced retention and other sexual practices. Of course, he would say a live instructor is preferable, but that it is not totally necessary to safely get many of the benefits from the sexual practices (going to a higher level does require a teacher). He offers audio courses because he thinks these provide more of a 'transmission' than books. His study plan has competence with the Inner Smile, Six Healing Sounds, and Microcosmic Orbit as a prereq for learning the sexual techniques. Also, responding to Twinner's comment on the first page, appreciating the energy loss of ejaculation is not the same thing as thinking sex is bad. On the contrary, many begin learning the Healing Tao techniques to enhance their sexual pleasure. And they work, if done properly. But I do agree that moderation and having a healthy perspective are most important.

Free ebook on the Inner Smile if you enter your email at http://www.healingtaousa.com/ It's fantastic. Or just read it here Inner Smile Also Eric Yudelove's 100 days books are great, starting with 100 Days Enjoy!

Hi Prince, Cool stuff! I majored in Religion in college (I concentrated in Buddhism), and every time I tell someone that they ask me why I didn't go to seminary! Did I mention I live in the heart of the Bible belt? Your story about the minister is a telling one. A lot of times a person with a more liberal approach to religion will espouse how all religions have their virtues and are good for certain people. And this is true to a certain extent. But sadly, it seems the majority of religious people don't have this view. Even people who pay lip-service to ideas about tolerance think their religion is best (after all, why would they follow it if it weren't?), and as such often still try to convert people to their way. This is one reason I heartily endorse they use of reason as a tool evaluate religious claims. One of my favorite books in this arena is The End of Faith by Sam Harris. Interestingly, Harris is one of the main faces in the new atheist movement, against his will: he thinks the term atheist is both intellectually dishonest and tactically unsound. Many atheist fundamentalists gloss over or disdain his last chapter on the preference for a rational spirituality.

Haha figured you might agree Vaj

I definitely agree with a lot of what's been said here, but just to offer another perspective, isn't this somewhat contradictory? To say all paths are equal and that they are all part of the Tao? For instance, many monotheists would argue that a personal God is the highest reality. It recalls in my mind the work of John Hick, arguably the most influential religious pluralist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick There's a lot to say, but basically his idea is that there is the 'Real' (ie transcendent reality) that one cannot speak about absolutely, only relatively (sounds a lot like the Tao). Religious perceptions all have their own take on this 'Real'. But of course he has his critics. For instance, in some forms of Buddhism, there is no Real, wheareas in Christianity, absolute things can be said about God. Though I realize that your original point was that any religion that teaches reverence for life gets a thumbs up in your book, mine too! Sadly, some do not fall into this category

Nice. Gives a new meaning to the Inner Smile instruction "Imagine a smiling sun in front of you."

Nice insights Sloppy. I like your level-headed approach.

Haha I like this approach. Funny things these forums are.

I like this. Cool insight, cat!

Yes it's unfortunate. It seems like those who care enough to manipulate their way to powerful positions in politics are precisely those who shouldn't have power!

Right, see here #4: http://www.tao.org/tao.html The ideas of universal compassion and non-violence definitely have more of a Buddhist and Hindu rather than a Taoist flavor, in general. Taoism tends to be more earth-centered, and harming other creatures is a fact of our reality. Can plants really feel pain? I thought one of the big indicators of feeling was having a limbic (emotional) system. So, for instance, fish do not have a fully developed limbic system, and so many people think its ok to eat them and not other forms of meat. But if plants, why not bacteria? Or germs that our body is constantly killing off by the billions just to stay alive? I wonder how the Jain view of non-violence would have evolved if it had an understanding of micro-organisms. I tend to agree with the 'do no unnecessary intentional harm' view. But it is important to consider why this is different from an absolutist 'do no harm' view, because it is in significant ways.

I tend to agree. Politics bothers me. But is being politically apathetic the best way to go? Perhaps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicureanism

Awesome links guys thanks! Contemplating size scales is a great meditation indeed.