Taoist81

Then if prayer makes you feel better, do it. The largest studies have shown people recover no more often with prayer than without it (of course there are limitations to the ability to test this since anyone might have someone praying for them). If you have a very deep "relationship" with your god then you would "trust his Will" which would be basically the same as a "Philosophical Taoist" "going with the flow". A traditional Taoist might offer prayer and/or sacrifices at a temple or altar to a particular deity. Again, the best option would be to try to find out about alternative therapies even experimental drugs/surgery as opposed to prayer. Or, if there are absolutely no options left, spend what precious little time you have with the child who will soon be taken from your life forever instead of spending it talking to a deity that you can still believe in after the kid is dead. Again, prayer may make someone feel better, but as the old saying goes "god helps those who help themselves". Or rather "god takes credit for those who help themselves or benefit from serendipity". The Chartreuse Unicorn is an imposter trying to lead people from the True Faith in Her Highness The Invisible Pink Unicorn. : ) It is a servant of the devious Purple Oyster.

Then you would still be better off trying to get the steak knife away from him... : ) If you really think about it, there are few if any real world emergencies in which you are better off praying than trying to handle things in a more mundane way. But she is everywhere, just like HH the FSM, you can't leave her out.. : )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension#Spatial_dimensions Additional dimensions Theories such as string theory and M-theory predict that physical space in general has in fact 10 and 11 dimensions, respectively. The extra dimensions are spacelike. We perceive only three spatial dimensions, and no physical experiments have confirmed the reality of additional dimensions. A possible explanation that has been suggested is that space is as it were "curled up" in the extra dimensions on a very small, subatomic scale, possibly at the quark/string level of scale or below.

....well, one would hope the Taoist, or anyone else for that matter, would be trying to find a way out of the dangerous situation rather than praying to an invisible man/woman/spaghetti monster/pink unicorn to magically teleport them from the situation. Jumping out a window would be much more effective in most cases.

Depending on what you have taken, you may want to look into Kratom. It has been used with fairly good results to help people coming off opiod based drugs and it is gurrently still legal in 49 states (if you are in the US). As for the "effect on your organs from a TCM perspective", everyone is a bit different. To be able to diagnose you one would have to see you, go through the 10 questions and check your tongue and pulse and then some. Good luck.

As above, so below...

Those of us who studied traditions that were influenced or founded by Crowley may have found our first introduction to Taoism by that route. The Tao Te Ching and Chuang Tzu are on the basic required reading list. As for "Northern witchcraft and paganism", the largest traditions nowadays mostly descend from or were inspired by Gardner's line. His was the first to "come out" (or be invented depending on the story you agree with) after witchcraft was legalized in Britain. Gerald Gardner (as alluded to by a poster above) was for a time associated with Crowley and familiarized with the post-Crowley OTO and the Book of the Law. The central tenet of Crowley's groups/philosophy was "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" accompanied by "Love is the law, love under Will". This meant that achieving (basically) one's true/ultimate purpose or Will was the whole of the purpose of existence. Compare the wiccan rede "An' it harm none, do what ye/thou wilt"....sound familiar? Then came things like the Charge of the Goddess and the Book of Shadows, both of which basically quote the Book of the Law and/or Crowley's poetry. The Book of the Law focuses on the Egyptian goddess Nuit and the gods Hadit and Ra Hoor Khuit. So, in a very round about way, you could argue that there is some (Victorian interpretation of) Egyptian influence but nothing "real". For the most part modern pagan traditions imitate old (original and dead) pagan traditions. There are a few claims that some groups survived the Christianization of Europe and Britain. While this can't be dismissed as impossible, the evidence is severely lacking. Perhaps a good well-rounded way to introduce your little one to all this would be to get some "scholarly" books on different religions/magick traditions. Once she has more understanding she can choose the path she wants to follow and will be more religiously educated than most people in the Western world.

For witchcraft you should look for "Buckland's guide to Witchcraft" (the title is something like that). For Western Mystery Traditions a good beginner's book is Modern Magick by Donald M. Kraig. He does have some mistakes in it, but he covers the vast majority of methods and does so rather well. Bardon's system is also popular. Aleister Crowley is on of the big names (even those who dislike/disliked him owe much of the information available to his work), but much of his work is pretty indepth for what you seem to be looking for, not to mention a bit cryptic. That said, www.outercol.org has the required reading list for Students aspiring to the A.'.A.'.. The idea of the Student Grade (and the Probationer Grade for that matter) is to give a general introduction to the diverse methods available to the Aspirant, both Eastern and Western. The Equinox is linked in their reading list, and it has a wealth of information, much of it Egyptian themed. It is also worth noting that there is little in Gardenerian Wicca that was not taken and modified in some way from Crowley's texts and rituals.

Nothing in the post was actually meant to "judge" your personal understanding. The comment you are responding to was actually something of a play on words. "Understanding" is a state that exists "below" both Tao and "the Crown" (to use western terminology). Thus, one (anyone, not just you) cannot "understand" Tao or God, they can only be "experienced". Again, none of this was meant as an insult, only a statement on the limitation of language and the human mind. Personally, the "deeper meaning" is the only one that is "useful" in any practical sense. With the qualifier of "most believers" your point about huge differences between "god" and Tao are completely valid. But that is because Then we share a common heritage. Please look again, "misunderstanding" was not a term used in the above post. This we agree on. It is also part of the reason that religion/spirituality is not much more than a political and social club nowadays, unfortunately. Since there is no "One Christianity" it has very much to do with the discussion at hand. Just because the majority of so called "Christians" don't grasp the concept of experiencing their faith, doesn't mean the essence does not still lie at the core of it all. Jesus himself said that he taught "the people" in parables, while teaching his disciples the deeper meaning. Thus, a pearl in manure is still a pearl. And a supreme and infinite deity, both infinite and infinitesimal, both within man and beyond him and in other ways identical with what the Chinese dubbed "the Tao" still lies at the root of Jesus' teachings. Here, please accept concession. Based on his revised question, implying a susceptibility to human petition, we are in agreement that your response is the more accurate one. There is no need or desire to "feel superior". It is simply that, just like the word "soul", "god" is one of those words in English to which we are sadly limited. Just as every tradition with any length of tradition has a number of "parts" to the "soul" all distinct despite the fact that we use "soul" to translate all of them, "god" is a word which is used both to imply the limited god you describe and the infinite "principle" or "essence" discussed and experienced by the founders of most of the great religions and those spiritual giants who went and go deeper than dogma. Look to the Sufis, the Jesuits, the ancient Taoists, the Quakers, the Kabbalists,the Hasidim, the Yogis, the Esoteric Christians, the Rosicrucians etc., etc. ad nauseum and you find that the limited description of "god" discussed here is sorely lacking.

That would depend greatly on the Christian you are speaking with. If you were to go back to the quite obviously "mystic" Jesus (if ther was such a man) he would likely say that "God" is "that which is and is not". Claiming you "understand" what either is, is an obvious overstatement, but an understandable one. However, calling "god" and "icon" clarifies that we are not talking about the same thing. He he. Yes, Ferengi look quite odd. There was no "dismissal", only a pointing out of the limitations of your definition. Looking at the Sefer Yetzirah, or the Zohar, or the writings of Rumi show clearly the limit to the definition you give for the English word "god". Comparing your definition to "Tao" would be no different from comparing "Tao" to the English word "way". Again, that is completely disregarding the deeper (and possibly original) meaning of the Western concept of "God". Take a look at the western traditions that actually question themselves and that actually produce results and you will see that "God" is not simply an "icon". You are quite right that that is how the majority of "christians" perceive it. But anyone who actually takes the time to explore ANY of the Western theologies will find the exact same results as a Taoist who truly explores his/her "faith".

Exactly

That is a very limited idea of "God". Hmm, that sounds more like it. Ehieh That is a statement of misunderstanding, to say the least. Edit: It may be helpful to clarify that this post is coming from someone who is not Xtian, Jewish or Muslim and for all intents and purposes is an atheist/agnostic, mystic, humanist. One who does not hold to new age fluffy-crap adulterations of reality.

"Will" in the context of the current conversation is an unfortunately required ambiguity. Again, in the higher or mystic "concepts" (another unfortunate concession) "God" has no "changable will" any more than Tao can be said to. The base god of parts of the Old Testament (and some of the New Testament) seems at first glance to be "angered" or "partial". "He" is even described as such in some cases. But again, it is a matter of deep "exploration". If you follow that train of thought, then yes, "God" is subordinate to "Tao" because Tao lies behind all. However, if you look deeper, you see that the "higher" concept of "God" is synonymous with Tao and just as changing/unchangable. The "ten thousand things" still return to the "source" no matter what a particular civilization calls it. You are not the only one who feels this way.

First off, the Tao Te Ching calls the Tao the "forefather of the gods". There are also a multitude of gods in the "religion" of Taoism (if you respect a division in Taoism at all). However, there is one problem with the question here. The implication is that there is actually a difference between "god" and what the Chinese call Tao. Lao Tzu calls it "something" that "mysteriously formed" and off handedly (almost) dubs it "Tao". The flowing, impartial, ever-present nature associated with the Tao is actually no different from the "true" idea of "God" in the western tradition. Most people now think of God as some big Daddy in the sky. However, if you really dig into this idea through meditation, contemplation and (if you know how) actual exploration, the idea falls apart. Even in Isaiah God is described as "forming light and creating darkness, creating peace and causing calamity." The anthropomorphic idea that most people have of God is quite foreign (and severely diluted) from what the early believers held in awe. Jesus, if there was such a man, taught that he and "the father" were one, and that he desired his disciples to be one "as [he] and [his] father are one". He points to flowers and birds as examples of effortless living dependant on nothing more than God. Likewise, Taoist teachers have looked toward nature for examples throughout history. If you look at the "deeper" forms of Christianity and other Western faiths, you find not the empty shell that most associate with the names of these religions that dump their responsibilities on some old bearded man in the sky (though this is a valuable image for some things) but a deep reverence for a God that is all but identical with what Lao Tzu calls the Tao.

First, there is no evidence beyond the author's own claims that this "lineage" existed outside of his own head. It is entirely possible, based on the book's information, that he heard some old "ghost stories" about sexual vampires read a few "taoist" sex books and made it up. Since so much was destroyed in the communist takeover it makes for an easy backdrop for make-believe. Second, the STD "protections" that he gives in the book have no basis in reality. Aspirin as a panacea for STDs?!?! Pfizer would be breaking the bank! That is quite possibly the worst part of this book. If people want to have kinky voyueristic sex, fine, but telling them it is safe as long as they take aspirin.....F%#ked up. As stated in another thread, it seems that this author may have simply taken advantage of the phonetic pronunciation of his "name" to "out" himself...She Lie, indeed.

Chi Kung = Qi Gong. Just different transliterations.

Except that you would be forwarding a lie. http://www.snopes.com/science/cookegg.asp

Retention and celibacy tend to be popular topics around here. Most of us have toyed with one or the other or both at some point and feelings are diverse about the uses/benefits of such a practice. In TCM excessive sexuality (or according to some excessive e) is a cause of Kidney deficiency (mostly). In the West feelings have been mixed over male sexual habits, but in recent years real studies have been done re: male sexual health. Now, we can all see the practical benefits of ejaculation control, but what about the negative health effects. Some here seem to see celibacy as an ultimate goal, or something that is to be aspired to or is honorable. This in history, seems to have been a Buddhist import into Taoism. Celibacy is not found normally in nature except in submissive animals in an alpha male dominated society. In those cases it is the weaker of the species, not the healthier, that are celibate. The human psyche certainly makes our behavior different, but still, celibacy is noticeably rare in nature. Taking Nature as a reference and science as the lens through which we observe, how do those here that support complete abstinence from ejaculation or celibacy look at things like: "Men who ejaculated most often actually had a 33% lower lifetime risk of prostate cancer, and this relationship grew stronger as men grew older." www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20040406/frequent-ejaculation-prostate+risk+of+prostate+cancer+%2233%25%22+study&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

Sean, this is really important if it is true. Three universities?! Where were the results published? The discovery of a new "substance" created by qi manipulation of water would be a huge breakthrough. The chinese government has never had any problem with publishing material without a proper paradigm before. That is why the earliest acupuncture studies were/are so detested. If they are getting results in a controlled setting they would simply need to publish the method and results. Paradigms arise from evidence, not in order to publish it. When did it backfire before (unless you mean with the acupuncture studies, which didn't "backfire" because it caused better studies to be done)? Where did he make this open invitation? If he did there are a number of respected skeptic groups (even excluding Randi's since you hate him) that would be glad to provide scientists and other experts to insure the validity of testing.

Thanks for the chart. That does make for some interesting food for thought. Agreed. The >21 vs 0-3 were so close that it is probably not statistically significant. Did you see the numbers for the 1-3 group? Perhaps it was just overlooked here. The only reference seems to be that the "none" group was too small to be a group on its own. Under that definition of "more/less dangerous" yeah, it makes sense, because of metastasis. As for the interpretation, yeah, jumping to conclusions is easy to do especially based on the original article, there was no mention of the low 0/1-3 group risk. Really more studies will be needed before anyone can know the truth. The only point of posting this was to discuss the claimed benefits of retention/celibacy vs. the shown (potential) benefits of the opposite.

You obviously do not have a very broad range of experience. Some of us have known many, many disciplined and extremely hard working individuals that due to circumstances (often completely beyond their control) find themselves in very poor conditions. Even speaking as a Libertarian it is quite clear that some people just have rotten "luck".

http://www.religionnewsblog.com/21377/wayn...ser-strong-city With all the talk from time to time about gurus, masters, teachers etc. one has to wonder just how many people, genuinely seeking truth and enlightenment/salvation, end up following "teachers" like the guy in this documentary. Like most cults he controls the members sexuality, though they claim they are doing everything of their own will. Anyone who has ever been in a cult knows what the twisted truth of that statement is. The looks on the faces of these people is one of a completely empty yet happy obliviousness. One must assume there is much pain masked therein (especially for those like the leader's son, whose wife he openly slept with on multiple occasions "because God told him to"). When the worldview is shifted and such "brainwashing" is used the pain is reinterpreted as coming from oneself and the leader (who is actually causing all of it) is the only one who can help. Anyone who didn't see this and wants to, word is it is set to replay on May 11th.