JustARandomPanda

You might check out The Complete I Ching: Tenth Aniversary Issue by Alfred Huang Also check out Wu Xing: The Five Elements by Elizabeth R. De La Vallee

Oh... Two more books to get. The Attention Revolution by Alan Wallace and Train Your Brain, Engage Your Heart, Transform Your Life by Amit Sood Why these books will benefit your Qi Gong practice: The real power of any Qi Gong practice is unleashed when you have trained your awareness to be very focused (laser-like) and stable. Think about it. If all knowledge of Qi Gong/Nei Gong/Shen Gong (lineages, masters, classic ancient texts, etc) or Pranayama, Yoga, Masters, etc were to suddenly disappear from this planet ALL of the knowledge lost in the above scenarios could be completely recovered by people practicing focused/laser-like, stable attention upon themselves. Train in stable focused awareness as a legitimate separate practice worthy of your time invested. It will repay you in dividends you can't begin to imagine (until said dividends start to manifest ). p.s. Pair your Qi Gong Training and Attention-Meditation-Training with actual "manifested-in-the-real-world-regularly" Good Deeds. Without practicing virtue all the other will be stalled out. Giving generously to others is the foundation which will allow all the rest of the benefits from Qi Gong and Attention-Training to follow.

I'm currently reading The Roots of Chinese QiGong by Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming It has the precursor/foundation exercises you should do prior to the second book -K- linked to. Also check out The Way of Energy by Master Lam Kam-Chuen - great info and illustrations on getting started in Zhan Zhuang (embrace the tree) training. It fills in gaps in BK Frantzis Opening the Energy Gates book. Strongly recommend both. Second the recommendations for anything from BK Frantzis and Dr. Glenn Morris. Edit: Oh! One other book I definitely wanted to recommend. Robert Bruce's Energy Work: The Secrets of Healing and Spiritual Growth. Bruce's book is unique in some ways in that he came up with this Qi Gong system because he had 2 students who had been born blind. Since so many kinds of Qi Gong practices assume the practicer can see a lot of the explanations tend to default to visualization aids to help get the exercises across. Obviously this doesn't work for people who are born blind. So he had to find a way to make a 'kinetic awareness only' based Qi Gong. Going this route ramps up one's ability to feel Chi very quickly. It worked so well for his born-blind students he now has ALL his students practice and develop their Chi this way.

Think I may have found the YouTube vid you referred to. Just...Wow.

I've noticed a theme among some TTB posters. About how anything that changes automatically makes it unreal. Why what ever is unchanging is defined ipso facto as that which is 'really real' vs anything that changes? It's simply asserted as an axiom. Over and over. And if you point this out they tell you to get out of their thread because it's not meant for someone like you - only those whom have 'realized' this Axiom of Ultimate Truth. Why put that which is unchanging on a "real-er" pedestal than anything that changes? To me it seems suspiciously like a very, very deep bias to a particular PoV when posters keep insisting on framing it in those particular terms. It's like one little kid pointing a finger at other little kids going, "Nyah, Nyah. My Real is more real than yours".

I was wondering what time of day according to the 24 hour clock ("military time") in Taoism is said to be optimal or the peak hour for the Lymph system and it's related functions? Conversely, what hour is its lowest point (ebb)?

I have this book! It's awesome. I can only claim to speak for myself but I found that much of what Master Nan said in that book (and some others he's written) to be true in my case. Example: After a few months of focusing on the air going in and out of my nose to my surprise the focusing on my breath has 1. Shifted automatically - all by itself(!) - to my Lower Dantien - I did not consciously "make" it happen. The BODY "decided" to do it without my intention or goal-setting.

***** Edit: *erased post* To ChiDragon - anyone at TTB is free to post in it whether they read the whole thread or not. The Defeat is in your own mind. Free it and the rest will follow.

That doesn't answer why so many people assert the following: Unchanging defined as that which is real and change is that which is not. For example: The often asserted statement that Awareness is unchanging.

Please keep things civil folks and return discussion directly to the OPs opening topic. Also remember - modding by humans by its nature is not going to work exactly like a computer algorithm/IF THEN to determine adherence/violation of ToS. Which means judgement calls that some may disagree with can and will at times get made. Something to ponder ere anyone in this or any other thread decides to post things in a "Black Ops - fly under the ToS" mode. - S.B. / Mod Team

Edit: I see TI already posted Gopi info...

This way of thinking postulates that the present is fully arisen from the past. I reject that. Buddha has rejected such way of thinking as well. So has Nagarjuna. The past doesn't fully determine the present and the future. Check this: http://rywiki.tsadra...igation_of_Time Ignore Tsongkapa commentary. Tsongkapa is an idiot who tends to cloud the issues more than clarify. Nagarjuna is perfectly clear by himself. What happens in the present is a mix of the past plus intent in the now. That's a crude way of saying it and is not 100% correct either, because you can (learn how to) change your past from the present too. GiH's last statement is getting close to what I've been wondering about lately.

Wanted to share this as this talk by Sadhguru really hit home. He summed up exactly what's been bugging me so much both about Secularist Scientistic Materialists and the average "religious" or "spiritual but not religious" person. Edit: fixed

Hi Boy! It's all cool with me. Your opinion, statements, explanations, assessments, etc or whatever about me simply is what it is. Likewise your assessment of Sadhguru. I hope all is going well with you. May your wisdom, prosperity and peace ever increase! Cheers!

I thought the ENTIRE point was to focus on how enlightened I am - not how enlightened the message delivery vehicle might or might not be. If an actor can get me focused on what I am enlightened about and what I'm not then why and where is the griping coming from about whether the medium for message delivery is or is not as 'it's supposed to be'? Why's it so regrettable if an actor delivers messages of such as are said in the vid? If Sadhguru was a garbage collector or professional actor would it make any difference in the content of said message's relevance? For that matter - would it make any difference to the message's relevance if he was a full-blown Taoist Immortal or Buddha? WHAT is it that's doing the judging of 'it's regrettable'?

I found this not too long ago and got a good laugh. It was mainly Atheists reacting to a "Sorcerer" for publishing an Open Letter on his blog excoriating the New Atheists' aggressive public stance. Here's the original Open Letter And here's the Atheist reaction. What's funny to me is that I consider myself an Atheist as well as I do not believe in a Supreme Diety. There is a "supreme" Tao or "process", yes. A supreme Diety? I seriously doubt it. But somehow I suspect those self-described Atheists wouldn't agree I deserve to use the same moniker as them. p.s. Here's was my favorite comment by Atheists Edit: fixed broken links

I am interested in this also. I know it's not about Chinese Astrology per se but I can recommend some Western and Vedic Astrology books you may want to look at as well. I am someone who always likes to study a subject in-depth from many different culture's perspectives to see both where they agree and where they differ. For Western Astrology (traditional, not modern): On the Heavenly Spheres The Fated Sky Astrogenesis Here is a website that explains some of how ancient Westerners saw Heaven and Earth. Notice there are some similarities to the way Lao Tzu taught the Tao. There are differences too but not everyone in the West was a total ignoramus when it came to the Ultimate (Tao). Another Resource for those with a) deep wallets or b ) good libaries. Edit: Check out the attachment. Or a cheaper alternative: Return to the One: Proclus Guide to God-Realization (aka Realizing the Tao) And a book showing the Elizabethan era had a view similar in some ways to the Chinese: The Elizabethan World Picture (more stuff on "as above, so below" etc) For Vedic Astrology: Fundamentals of Vedic Astrology vol. 1 Also...if I discover a resource about Chinese astrology I'll share it here.

"Realization" is delusion. It's in itself an expression of ignorance. This goes for all "realizations," described in the wisdom traditions of the world. We all have the same fundamental nature, it's only the veils of obscurations that are distorting our vision of this. IMO, "knowing" is in itself ignorance - something that is predicated on an imagined "knower" as subject. Two fitting quotes, that I've poste before in another thread (yes, I know it's "Buddhist," but please bear with me): Understanding and perceiving rely on knowing, this is originally ignorance. Understanding and perceiving without perception, this is nirvana - Surangama Sutra Understanding and perceiving rely. Knowing: This is originally ignorance. Understanding and perceiving without meaning (are not.) Perception, this is nirvana - Ch'an master Yu-an EDIT: Messed up on the link to Thusness quote Huh? Where in the above reply is there disagreement with what I stated earlier? I've noticed it's a lot of Buddhists who are stuck on labels/Ideologies. They're the ones talking about how anyone like Dwai or any Hindu's or Sufi's or Taoist's reference to a True Self or Tao or Brahman, etc isn't Right View and will ultimately deny these 'Holders of Wrong View' the experience of liberation. They're saying that people like Dwai can't 'perceive without perception'. And they Gnow this to be true of that particular person HOW? Oh wait...it's because Dwai keeps using that damn label True Self. At any point do they actually BECOME Dwai as Dwai is busy 'perceiving without perception'? If so I've never seen any references of them doing it. Here's what I do see them do: Posts like "I've experienced directly how saying True Self is subtle clinging. To which I would reply: "Em...OK. That tells me about how YOU directly perceived without perception "True Self" but it tells me nothing about how Dwai actually does. Tell me how Dwai experiences/gnows/perceives without perception this True Self and let's see if it matches up with your own experience." Only Ideologies stay stuck on a groove insisting a label (which by definition is not an experience) denies one of the ability to experience. Unless of course Buddhists are saying that labels do indeed hold this power. One thing I've noticed - (I'll call 'em Right View-er(s)) is assuming that his/her understanding of what the other person is saying is indeed exactly equivalent to what that other person is in fact saying. Most of the time I haven't seen such Right View-ers ask enough questions or try to understand where the other person is coming from. Arhat or no they can jump to conclusions with the best of us un-enlightened Worldlings. I still maintain that Right View is a Result of one's cultivation practice and that any other formulation runs the risk of becoming a Belief or Ideology one unconsciously clings to - in fact - it may already be so. BTW - Ever notice how the Buddha himself never had any of his teachers hounding him about how he wasn't grounded in that Right View first? There were no gurus and their students pimping "Right View" before the Noble 8 Fold Path was expounded. Now the world is full of it. By definition how in the world can anyone who is ignorant of 'how things work' get a View Right first?!! Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? It is this that I think Malcolm/Namdrol has abandoned.

Then my read on your statement above to me is you don't understand Dwai as that has always been one of Dwai's points as well. And Namdrol has taken a side. He's dropping the whole sectarianist stance - that IS a "side" in my view - and a good one to have. If Buddhists are permitted to have the Viewless View I don't see why Dwai can't have the Sideless Side. Edit: Here's Sadhguru talking about the "side" or "view" of the Scientistic Materialist (aka Ontological Naturalist/Physicalist). For example: I can't ever imagine Richard Dawkins agreeing with Sadhguru that there are other ways of knowing that have nothing to do with our senses or consciousness. To admit that would pull the rug out under a foundation of modern scientistic materialism. I've thought a lot of what Sadhguru says about views could equally apply to any "view" or stance manifesting as "my View is the True View and anything else is Wrong View", not just Scientistic Materialists. I'm going to guess many Buddhists would argue Sadhguru's Emptiness is not the same thing as a Buddha or Bodhisattva's Emptiness.

Babaji: The Lightening Standing Still - by Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath Drive Yourself Sane: Using the Uncommon Sense of General Semantics - 3rd Ed. by Susan and Bruce Kodish

I agree. I may poke at Scientific Materialists but I do think they have somewhat more of a stand than just outright woo-woo typical religious people. It's when things get more subtle...when you want them to start exploring their unspoken assumption - that matter is the ONLY thing there is and all the rest is superstition that I get frustrated with them. I watched an Indian produced debate on YouTube and Sadhguru was part of it. No one really noticed one of the things he kept mentioning. That what Materialists call Consciousness is not the only way of Knowing. Think about that. No Materialist would agree to that as it removes the rug (belief) that is part of their foundation. Funny you should mention him because I've been watching a lot of both him and Gurunath lately. There is a lot of wisdom there and it is foolish to say that "liberation" or "Nirvana" is only for the Right View-ers (read: typically some sort of Buddhist). IMO...Right View comes FROM practice, not solely the reverse...otherwise...you're just believing other people's assertions. Even the Buddha said he could not give people his Realizations...only point possible avenues to explore. The Buddha mentioned the End-Result is the same for everyone in the Lotus Sutra. Capacity to understand is different but "nirvana" is the same for everyone. http://www.youtube.c...n?feature=watch

I suspect Vajrahidaya would be quite surprised at this turn-about by one of his guiding light teachers. It sounds as though Malcolm/Namdrol has sided with Dwai now. speaking only for myself: I've been pondering lately if the emphasis on whether this-or-that teaching is Right or Wrong view is maybe the wrong way to go about things. The thing that makes the most sense to me is what does this or that particular individual actually KNOW directly. As in...not a belief...not bought into some story or explanation - whether spiritual OR scientific. Side Note: the latter -without investigation into how beliefs are formed within one's self - leads to unconscious belief in the "Truthness" of Materialism aka Physicalism aka Scientific Atheism but no matter how you spin it - it's still a belief...nobody to my knowledge has ever "directly experienced" a proton, electron, quark...etc. It doesn't really matter what you believe...the training should always focus on exactly what does this-or-that-individual Directly KNOW. If I don't Know the Tao for myself then what good has it done me to say I'm a Taoist of any kind?! Ditto Buddhism? Dzogchen? Muslim? Christian? Etc? Whether I wanna call a Realization True Self or No Self does it really matter? I can only think of one reason where it would. If either actually got in the way of me KNOWING. Even someone else telling me "you're wrong" doesn't do me a whole lot of good. Why? Cause I don't KNOW HOW I was "wrong" in the first place. So them telling me - even if I buy into it is - A belief! The very thing VMarco keeps stridently arguing on these boards is the enemy of one actually KNOWING (er....or as he would say: GNOWING).

Can someone please explain to me what is a bindu or a bindu drop? For some reason when I read a (very brief) passage that mentioned bindu (without explaining what it is or does) I kept picturing a blue hershey's kiss candy. Does it have any other function that to just aid one in staying focused (anchored) on a certain area?

Go here > http://www.renaissan...altalisman.html You could also send the site owner - Christopher Warnock - an email with your question. He might be able to give advice. I'm saving up to take a course on how to cast and consecrate my own astrological talismans so hopefully someday I'd be able to answer a question such as yours personally. In the meantime though I wish you well.

Why is it absurd?!!! It is INDIVIDUALS who change the world. As Margaret Mead once said, "Indeed it's the only thing that has." We CAN do things beyond message board post masturbation. I am surprised and saddened to read this admission from you Twinner. All you want to do is just post your Op Eds about it at TTB?!! You even took my post as yet another opportunity to make yet another OP Ed on the subject (including pointing out how you made yet MORE OP Eds on this SAME subject last year) but then OP Ed to me how it's absurd to think we can do something about it - Except - more message board Op Eds!! Everybody and his uncle can Moralize on a topic. And the only real thing that happens is you get to have multiple Op Ed posts on a message board about the subject with one or two days of fame then it fades like all the rest. You'll be here two years from now making another Op Ed post on the same subject about how nothing ever gets done. Damn. We could transform this thread and have some really interesting ideas tossed around and start something really good. Even a tiny effort beyond endless TTB Op Ed posts on the subject would be as Chang said - "a step in the right direction." Amnatava was on to something imo. Props to Amnatava! I'm even looking into creating such an online petition myself along with posting on multiple Buddhist forums across the web I'm a member of to try to get something going. I'm even trying to find out if there are Buddhist monasteries in the U.S. where such petition could be presented once enough signatures were gathered. Such monasteries would be more likely to have the inside connections to foreign monasteries where such abuse is probably going on. It's not much...but it's actually taking some sort of concrete action. Without action nobody will give the subject the seriousness it deserves. And the above is only ONE idea. There well may be others we could all come up with! Until we TRY how do we know? But if we start out a priori with the defeatist attitude that individual action is "absurd" for SURE nothing will change. Here's a Wikipedia page on some U.S. Buddhist monasteries as a possible starting point. Damn...I guess Twinner's opening post was right. Nothing about this particular topic will ACTUALLY change. p.s. I am going to be gone from the board for the next 3.5 - 4.5 weeks and so won't see Twinner's reply to this post which I know he'll make so his addressing "Hello Sereneblue" reply will actually be a rhetorical device. Anyway...if anyone wishes to contact me about my posts in this thread or possibly participating in a petition or any other brainstorming ideas for actions please send it as a PM. That's the ONLY thing I'll be seeing on TTB for the next month or so.