Neophyte

MCO is the foundation of what training? Isn't it an advanced technique that should only be practiced after you achieve an erection when meditating at hour of tsu? (roughly midnight). It takes a long time to achieve the midnight boner--I think your jing must be completely filled up first, and ready to overflow--that's when you'll achieve the erection. Correct me if I am wrong. The passage he quoted, about flowers blossoming in the snow, or whatever, is near the end of the book. There are 16 steps and I think that this happens around chapter/step 12. Has Chunyi Lin really advanced that far? Taoist Yoga says that the light of vitality is achieved at step 6 and stabilized at step 7. So does he see the light of vitality in front of him everywhere he goes? If someone practices Taoist Yoga, is that all he needs to practice? The book seems to imply that nothing else is necessary, because all of the practicer's time is spent devoted to this practice. If it needs to be balanced with something else, what should you practice alongside it? Can anyone tell me what school / branch of Neigong the teachings in Taoist Yoga are from? I know it's not really called "Taoist Yoga", because that is just what Charles Luk called it when he translated it into English. What is this system really called? Who practiced it and where? Does anyone know more about the origins of this system?

Here is further info on the debate. Here in Ontario, Canada, we have a tv show called "Big Ideas", which showcases public intellectual culture. It is similar to TED Talks but much better: Each lecture is an hour and is much more information-intense (less dumbed-down than TED). The lectures are by academics (professors), authors and other luminaries, covering a wide-range of topics. Here is a lecture by Julian Barbour, visiting professor at the University of Oxford and the author of The End of Time, addressing the question, Does Time Exist? Barbour explores the history of scientific thought on the concept of time and presents his own interpretations of what time is. He delivers the lecture at the Perimeter Institute. The Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics is an independent research centre in foundational, theoretical physics located in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. It was founded in 1999. (Stephen Hawking even conducted some physics research at this institute about five years ago.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5rExaKLEoU

For a scientific view on the question, read "Timeless Reality" by Dr. Victor Stenger. He is professor emeritus of physics at the University of Hawaii. He says, in esse, that time does not exist. Stenger maintains that reality may be simpler and less mysterious than most think. The quantum world only appears mysterious when forced to obey rules of everyday human experience. Stenger convincingly argues that, based on established principles of simplicity and symmetry, at its deepest level reality is literally timeless. Within this reality it is possible that many universes exist, each with structures and laws different from our own. So now, even physicists are concluding that time does not exist. So Buddhists and Daoists have been vindicated!

Thanks for the list recommendation. Some of the titles look good. I'm going to check a few of them out on Amazon. Here's some books that I recommend: A Tale of Two Cities Bleak House Nicholas Nickleby The Mysteries of Udolpho The Mysterious Warning Lorna Doone The Orphan of the Rhine The Hound of the Baskervilles Future Babble The World in 2050 Qigong for Total Wellness, by Dr. Baolin Wu Taoist Yoga, translated by Charles Luk Embryonic Breathing by Yang, Jwing-Ming Small Circulation by Yang, Jwing-Ming Gateway to Wisdom by John Blofeld

Yeah, Finntroll is a good band from the songs I've heard. A lot of good metal is coming out of Finland these days. Finntroll is folk metal, I think, but also a little bit of Viking metal. It's good stuff.

It's curious that you are the one disagreeing with me. From other threads, I've gleaned that you're a materialist. Thus, you should agree with me more than anyone: It's the scientific and materialist perspective that the self does not exist. Use reductionism, not holism. Yes, but how is the zygote that's produced at conception in any way similar to what exists when one dies? They are two very different things. Do you identify your self with your thoughts? Materialism shows that even consciousness doesn't really exist: It is not a "thing"; it is not a noun. It is more of a verb: a process! It is a function of the brain to take in and process information from the environment. It is just a product of the brain. When the brain dies, the illusion of consiousness ceases forever. Asking where the "mind" goes after bodily death is like asking where digestion goes after bodily death! It's a silly question. (Digestion is a function of the gastrointestinal tract; when the body dies, digestion is no longer needed. Likewise with the consciousness.) And the consciousness--which so many people identify as being their "selves"--is very susceptible to changes in body chemistry. Alter one's testosterone level, and one becomes more aggressive; drink alcohol and one becomes silly; take psych meds and see the changes in personality can be profound....Alter any hormone or chemical and the "self" is changed. Which then, is the true self? Materialism shows that none of them is the true self: the resulting behaviour and thoughts are just what we get when we alter the body's chemistry. People identify their thoughts as being profoundly personal, as being their own. They believe that the thoughts they think represent themselves (that they choose the thoughts they think), and that their interests are their own. But really, thoughts are hugely dependent on the genes we inherited at conception: If slightly different genes happened to end up on your chromosomes during meiosis, then your thinking patterns throughout your life could be extremely different. You would probably have very different interests, talents, thoughts, etc. And you'd be identifying those traits as being "you." After taking all of this into consideration, how can you still claim that their is a "self"? Your body is constantly changing; your consciousness is continuously changing. Nothing about either can define "you." The more you apply reductionist scrutiny, the more you'll come to realize that there is nothing about you that you can cling to to identify as being your "self." This is the materialist perspective: it is reductionistic in nature and does not give any argument for a "self". The "self" is an illusion and holism supports this notion. Actually, according to Dr. Victor Stenger, professor Emeritus at the University of Honolulu, and a Ph.D. in theoretical physics, time itself may not even exist. Read his book "Timeless Reality." I have the book but can't understand it because one needs substantial background in physics to comprehend this tome. It is mainstream physics, and well-received by the physics community. If Einstein was correct, then time may not exist at all: everything exists simultaneously.

Actually, that would be nice to play at a funeral, Urpflanze. It's a really nice song. Here is the song that I would want played at my funeral. It's very fitting for a funeral, methinks. It is actually considered to be one of the greatest songs ever created, and one of the most beautiful. It is definitely one of my favourite, and is a song that I would like to be remembered by. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HipoikwHRb8

Here is one of my favourite songs. This is a Norwegian female singing (she also wrote the song). This song really brings me back to College, and University.

LOL. It's not just a tool to silence the mind, it's a truth itself: There really is no self. How would you define yourself? What makes you "you"?

I think that people have over-eager and irrational expectations of technology. They think that technology is going to solve all of the world's woes, especially at the moment of the Singularity, which is supposed to be achieved in the year 2045. The Singularity cult was popularized by Ray Kurzweil, who fancies himself to be an expert at predicting future technologies. (Of course, he's wrong about everything, but we're supposed to politely ignore all of his misses.) All in all, technology is not going to be our messiah, any more than Jesus was.

HAHAHA. I remember watching tv documentaries in the mid 1990s and they were talking about how virtual reality was going to become a popular technology by the year 2000. That's right. By the year 2000 we will all be using VR technology on a daily basis. I can't wait for the year 2000.... Oh wait...It's already 2013?

This is something I sometimes think about, and it really makes it difficult to accept reincarnation as a viable hypothesis. If we inherit genes that affect our behaviour, then what traits are left that belong to the soul? In other words, there is no need for a "soul" because everything that makes us "us" can be accounted for through the material world. ie. genes and environment. We've long understood that the bodies we have are given us by the scrambling of our parents' DNA, but now science is showing us that even our thoughts and behaviour--things we've perceived as being even more personal and profound that even our bodies--are determined by the genes we inherit! So once again, what aspects of ourselves can only be explained by invoking a "soul"?

Well, I've experienced both ends of the spectrum: too much sex, and infrequent sex. I can tell you that the less sexual release I have, the better I feel. Profligate sex--the way doctors prescribe and the media promotes--depletes the body, leaving the body feeling hollow and the mind scattered. Sickness of every kind crops up. I've been very rarely sexual lately. I feel much better: My abdomen, kidneys and lower back feeling exquisitely comfortable; they are full of jing and with each passing day I feel it slowly moving up my spine. And it feels really good! I have excellent concentration--no more scattered Xin mind! The blocked sinuses which I had suffered from for so many years (no doubt caused by overindulging in sex) are opened up! I am able to breathe uninhibited through my nostrils--which is a luxury I thought I would NEVER again have. At times, when my sinuses DO close up, I draw the energy up my spine in a SINGLE rotation of the microcosmic orbit, and my sinuses pop open immediately when energy descends down my face (descent of orbit, jen mo). I think it's safe to say that the torture I experienced from chronically blocked sinuses is a thing of the past. The contrast between the way I feel now and the way I felt when wasting my jing, is infinitely different. You said that retention will make your mind go haywire. Well, that happens when you force it too much. When you start to go haywire, it's time to release. The objective is to go for longer and longer periods without sex; it takes years to get good at it. But nevertheless, you'll be making progress every day you abstain.

I know. That's what I said. Again, that's essentially what I said. Having a strong Yi consciousness can allow you to control and gather your chi energy. Where we disagree is that having a higher IQ does not lead to greater chi. I said that Yi and IQ--although different--are interconnected and interrelated; improving one improves the other. Whilst having a higher IQ does NOT lead to a greater chi directly--it does so indirectly by empowering your Yi. Using your IQ can NOT move your chi along your chi channels: I agree with you on that. But having a high IQ will be valuable in developing Yi and controlling Xin. Like I was saying in my post, I notice that having facts and figures and calculations bubbling in my mind, is excellent at controlling my xin--monkey mind--when I sit down to meditate (in fact, at any time).

Strong Yi leads to strong chi. Hence, a stronger intelligence will ultimately lead to progress. A strong Yi is highly concentrated, as opposed to Xin which is emotional, noisy, unrestrained. Regulating the mind is the most important of the five regulations, and developing a strong Yi is essential in doing so. I think that Yi and IQ and self-reinforcing: develop one and the other develops. People with high IQ's already have stronger Yi minds. They can concentrate better, and can control their Xin (monkey minds). In my practice, I am working on my memory skills and knowledge to help develop my Yi. When I become vexed or mad about something, I start thinking of facts and figures, which I find helps control my emotions and regains my focus. When I practice qigong or meditate, it is better to have facts and figures in my head to help enter deep concentration, than having worries, joys, hopes, sorrows, etc, flow through my mind, which would make my qigong or meditation practice useless. Just remember: Strong yi leads to strong chi, and that yi and IQ are very interrelated and interconnected: changing one changes the other.

You said that real Emptiness is not reached until chapter nine. I think that Emptiness must be achieved by the end of chapter 1. By the end of chapter 1, one must be able to achieve "the Absolute Void". It is only when one achieves this, that one will get a nonsexual erection. Celibacy of the mind is not synonymous with stilling of the heart. Stilling of the heart is the ability to clear the mind of ALL thoughts--even at a subconscious level--when in meditation. It doesn't just refer to sexual thoughts--but thoughts of any kind. Moreover, stilling of the heart only needs to be achieved while sitting in meditation. One obviously can't have a still heart (thoughtlessness) while going about their day, lol. One can still have sexual thoughts while practicing about the first seven chapters of Taoist Yoga; the problem is that it will slow down progress. It is only when one creates the spiritual embryo--which takes place after chapter 7, that one must be free of all sexual activity. Any ejaculation will eject the spiritual embryo, and all of your progress will have been for nothing. How will I know if I have opened the third eye? I didn't know that there were different LEVELS of mco, although I'm aware that people open different paths. My interest is only on the path as given in Taoist Yoga, as it seems to be the best, most efficacious. However, I also sometimes follow the path as popularized by Dr. Yang, Jwing-Ming. This is something that I've been thinking about lately, which wasn't clear to me when reading Taoist Yoga. TY seems to say that the tip of the tongue must always be on the SOFT palate at all times (the water path). This is the Heavenly Pool. The Fire path on the HARD palate is NOT the Heavenly Pool. However, I've always been taught to keep the tongue on the Hard palate (fire path) during the day, and the WIND path (behind the teeth) at night when sleeping. So can anyone clear up my confusion? Following Taoist Yoga, should our tongues always be on the soft, water palate, even when NOT meditating?

So, during the process of Taoist Yoga, should we use normal abdominal breathing, or reverse abdominal breathing? And, during the mco, should the outer alchemical agent go through the center of the spine (inside)? When it reaches the top of the spine, does it go THROUGH the tsu ch'iao, or above it? If it goes above it, how much higher in the brain is it supposed to be?

I don't mean to change the topic of this interesting thread, but the bolded, underlined sentence above piqued my curiousity. I never heard of this before. I often concentrate on my upper dantian, which is near the pineal gland, and I notice that my jaw is always being forced open, as if my mouth is full of energy. My jaw constantly feels like it's being forced open, something I did not experience at all prior to when I first began to study qigong (a few years ago). I thought that it was a positive sign--that qigong and meditation practices have been successful--steadily restoring my generative force over the past few years. So am I missing out on something that I should know? Could you guys explain what is meant by what I bolded and underlined in the quote above? I don't know exactly what to ask, so just tell me anything about it.

I wasn't going to add another post to this thread, but I started thinking about this. I sometimes practice the swallowing saliva technique (when I can, lol). I think I do it correctly, but I'm not totally sure that I do it to the full potential of the exercise. My question is, How do you separate the energy from the saliva? I'm not just sending this question out to Friend, but to whoever might be able to help me.

Wow, this is a really great thread. Friend's posts here are of immense importance to me, I wish I had known about this sooner, because I strongly emphasize practicing at midnight in my practice and now I understand it better, midnight and noon change according to length of day! So, tell me if I understand this correctly. Where I live, tomorrow, sunrise is a 5:59 A.M. (Let's round to 6 a.m.); sunset is at 9:01 p.m. (let's round to 9 p.m.). So, roughly 9 hours of dark. 9/2 = 4.5. 9 p.m. + 4.5 = 13.5. So, 1:30 a.m. is true midnight. Correct? (And to be even more precise--I just want to make sure I understand this--when we take minutes into account, because dawn is at 5:59 am. and sunset is at 9:01 pm., this gives two more minutes to DAY; which means two fewer minutes to dark. 2/2 = 1. So, true midnight is 1:30 am. + 1 minute = 1:31 am.) Here is my confusion: What is meant by "astronomical" midnight? Where I live, it's currently Daylight Saving Time. So, does this calculation mean that my midnight practice should begin at 1:31 am or 2:31 am (to take into account Daylight Saving Time)? What adds further confusion, is that the book Taoist Yoga says that the positive half of the day begins at 11:00 pm, (not 12:00 am). It says to practice the Swallowing saliva technique after 12:00 am. Swallowing saliva technique is the BEST and FASTEST way to restore our generative force, and must be done during the positive half of day, otherwise, it's useless. So, does Taoist Yoga throw ALL of OUR calculations off, by stating that Yin half of day ends at 11:00 pm.( thus yang begins at 11:00 pm. and not midnight)? And how can Taoist Yoga's intervals of Yin/Yang periods of day be reconciled with the info given by Friend (Friend's being based on lengths of daylight and darkness)? I'm not just sending these questions out to Friend, but to whoever can clarify this for me.

In a materialist perspective, I think you may be right. Our intellects develop mostly during our childhoods and teenage years, when our bodies are still growing. Most people mistake our intellects as being something we each have, as if it's a trait (or set of traits), similar to eye color, finger length, etc. Moreover, they mistakenly think that our genes give us this substance (this intellect). They perceive it as something we have, or as if intellect is a reservoir from which we draw our ideas, memories, mathematical skills, etc. I think that our genes just set the trajectories of our minds. Over years of following those trajectories, each of us ends up in different places, which is outwardly perceived as being different levels of intellect (IQ). Some people get bogged down with inferior thinking patterns, and end up getting called "stupid." Others end up geniuses. As each of us follows these trajectories, we shape our respective brains. So, from my perspective, someone who is stupid has the equal potential to a genius (because intellect is not a "thing"). A stupid person has just been hindered by following the wrong trajectories. By changing those trajectories, he can in theory end up a genius, by reshaping his brain, by changing the way he thinks at a more and more fundamental level. So genes set trajectories; they don't bequeath intelligence. The damage to reincarnation notions is that our thinking patterns should be developed over lifetimes, not reset to different trajectories each time we are born. I'd really like to believe in reincarnation, but to think that something as fundamental as our thinking patterns is changed, each time we are born, in consequence of the genes we were given, is very vexing to me.

This is everything I didn't want to hear (about our IQ's being 80% genetically determined). Our minds are the substance of which we're made. We are mind. What is more, our intellects comprise most of our minds. Our intellects compose who we are; it is our Substance. Intellect is not a tool: it is not something we access--it's not a resource of which we are independent and upon which we draw. Moreover, it is not something that is inextricably bound to us. It is more than that--it IS us. The particular thoughts we think throughout the day are produced based on our thinking habits, which are based on our IQs. Even when we do something relatively mindless and nonintellectual--such as watching tv--the thoughts we think during that time are dependent on our intellects (and intelligent person and an average person are having VERY different experiences while sitting next to each other, watching the same tv show. The thoughts going through their respective heads are vastly different.) These new studies which show such a high percentage of IQ being derived genetically is a bit unsettling. It is a very materialistic finding, and can be used as an argument against reincarnation. From a reincarnationist perspective, IQ should be largely derived from thinking patterns, the latter of which are developed over multiple lifetimes--not dictated by the genes one is bequeathed with at conception.

Let's not devolve into a pointless squabble over this; however, why is it balderdash? As I said, the book documents reputable peer-view scientific studies. Neuroscience isn't tripe. Can you enumerate scientific studies showing that the brain is only hardwired?

Read "The Brain that Changes Itself" by Norman Doidge, M.D. This book documents the growing scientific evidence of our brain's neuroplasticity. It has been traditionally thought, by scientists, that once the brain reaches maturity, its neuroplasticity has slowed to a stop. That the brain at that point is essentially hardwired. But a growing mountain of respectable scientific research is slowing overturning that long-held assumption. Peer-review studies in the literature are now showing that the brain is more soft-wired (neuroplastic) than we thought, even in old age. Our thoughts can and do change our brain's neural networks. We can overcome mental illnesses, improve intelligence, even reverse hearing and eyesight damage, simply by rewiring our brains. Being on this forum is an advantage for you, because it means you've already opened yourself up to practices like meditation. This is important because concentration is highly important to build new synapses and neural networks. But I cannot elucidate the contents of the book better than the book can itself. So I strongly recommend reading it. The Brain that Changes Itself is one of the most important books I've ever read. If you really want to heighten your intellect, you need to be aware of the advances being made in modern neuroscience--and this book offers that.

Crossed the finish line! I completed 21 days and I'm on day 22 right now. My body has reached hormonal equilibrium. My sex drive is flat, I have great control over my mind: concentration is easy to channel, and almost total control over what I think about during the day. I love being in this state because I have more energy: I can go to bed later and wake up earlier, and still have ample energy during day. And when I'm in this stasis/equilibrium, chores don't seem like chores anymore. I'm able to throw myself into any hard work passionately. During periods of frequent sex, all I feel like doing is laying in bed, or sitting around the house. Work and chores I perform mechanically and without deep interest. I notice that when I'm in this hormonal equilibrium state--after I go a few weeks without sex--I can undertake the most arduous tasks, and do so with enthusiasm. My moods are better, and more easily controlled, and I have a quieter Xin (emotional mind), while my Yi (intellectual mind) is stronger. I think that humans probably evolved having sex only sporadically, because it feels much more natural to go several weeks or months without sex, than the high-frequency we've been enculturated to in modern society. I'm going to see how long I can go.