Taoist81

So is the "view" that bisexuality is a state of mind. That really depends on who you are speaking to. In some traditions bisexuals are held as the true nature, being the ones who held both the masculine and the feminine in balance. The ten thousand things hold yin and embrace yang, to the Tao there is no difference. Man with his "views" came up with morality not the "original nature". Who needs an excuse? Although you may want to tell the gay penguins that they are going against their true nature. Are you feeling a little attached to strict heterosexuality ther Lin? : ) Sure, everything is a "state of mind". In the end the only thing that really isn't is somewhere between compassion and indifference. But, for those living in a dualistic reality, the really don't need any more fundamentalists telling them that the love (both emotional and physical) they feel for someone of their own sex is somehow a sin, or contrary to their "original nature" or damaging to their karma. They already get enough of that from the Xtian fundies. Nature has and embraces heterosexuality, homosexuality and everything in between. At least the Xtians can say "well the only reason animals do that now is because of the fall." The Tao may not always be followed by man, we like to be distracted and all, but animals tend to go right along in their path (some of them eat meat even!). When you stop and see reality as it is, and accept that what you've learned about "x" may be wrong, you see that there is much less difference in "reality" that there is nonduality. But, you know that, you are simply expounding on the morality that goes with your particular aspect of the Path, and that's fine.

Or a simpler explaination could be that you are bisexual. Most sexuality, human or animal, exists on a spectrum. Your meditation is simply "settling" your the turbulent waters of your ego, and allowing you to observe things without the cultural bagagge normally associated with homo- or bisexuality. It is nothing to be afraid of, nor is it a requirement to act on every thought. It would be a good idea to just observe your feelings from an unbiased perspective though. It is only by facing what is within you that you can begin to deal with it.

A guy here in Houston is advertising a siminar on Tibetan Shamanism. His name is "Master Toledo" and he claims he will be teaching (and giving transmission in) what he was taught by his "Sifu Max". Does anyone know if this is connected with the Kunlun tradition? He is not advertising it if he is. Anyone?

Just for the record, the only thing he was advertising in the ad was tibetan "healing" of some sort (the ad is not here right now). The "Chi packed tapes" do sound....different. It just seemed interesting that after hearing (and honestly not being all that interested in) all the buzz about this Max character, one of his supposed "student masters" was offering a class here in Houston (and for somewhere around $25 at that). More curiousity than anything. Thanks for the thoughts everyone.

Actually, if he does the illusion the way most of the "godmen debunkers" in India (and by default the way most of the godmen do it also) do it, then yes. He has a "contraption" in his pants to sit on that connects to the cane. Like most astonishing "magic" it can be done using simple tools if you are good at sleights...

Nothing comes to mind as far as sources go. However, going off that preposition aren't roaches the most highly evolved species on the planet? : ) Good point...

Um.. where did we disagree? The above post stated that it "does not" have a goal, which is also what you are stating...though certainly from a certain pov there is direction, species move in the direction of survival. It is a "all roads lead to rome" sort of direction though because as you say some "lower lifeforms" are much better adapted to their environment than we are. It is very nice, by the way, to "speak" with someone who has a grasp on evolution though, here in Texas there are far too many who feel that ID is the only way things could have happened, without taking the time to look at the mechanics of biology. Also, are there any black and white answers? The "funny hats" are worn by the Shriners. Not all masons are shriners, though all shriners are masons. (obviously this was a tongue in cheek post, but it seemed worth pointing out)

"Taoists" have "historically" been a very diverse group. And among them were a great number of primative scientists. They kept extensive records on many of their researches into nature, the subconscious (to use modern parlance) and the "spiritual realm". On the other hand, a great number of "smart people" the world over believe and have believed lots of stupid things. Beyond that, jumping to conclusions about an individual's experience based on a single post (which doesn't actually out right deny the existance of any of the items you listed other than "George Bushian" reptilians) is a quite short sighted thing to do. The Taoists that formed the corpus of TCM and the varied meditative sciences did not do so by jumping to conclusions or by attacking other Taoists (though they did often have their battles with Buddhists ), they did so, by observation and by questioning what their eyes told them. Not everything you are told, read or even see is real. There are even Taoist exercises in which part of the success is differentiating between what is "real" and what is illusion. Thank you for the critique though, it is always helpful to see how others see things.

You have likely heard scientists claim either 1.) that evolution is "guided" because in a sense it is. It is guided by natural selection. That does not denote a "purpose" which was what was referenced in the above post. or 2.) those who have a theistic belief system of some sort who feel that since evolution happens it is guided by God (or whatever they choose to call it). The bottom line with "direction" is that as far as science goes, it has no "goal". If god used evolution to create man as his supreme acheivment, fine, but that is theology, not science. A great group of references as well as a great debunking of a frontrunner creationist video is at: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1668,n,n As for the use of the phrase "the theory of evolution says" is plainly a faulty statement due to the necessity of generalization. As you know well, scientific theories are not often nailed down as a specific phrase. But there is much misconception due to most people failing to realize were the lines of science are drawn. Too often people try to blur the lines on both sides rather than saying, "this is the evidence, this is the most likely theory, if it was all done by a Flying Spaghetti Monster, fine, we just can't find any evidence for it, thus it is not science. Likewise, I can't tell you scientifically there is no god, even if I believe that there isn't."

It is worth pointing out that anyone who understands what the Theory of Evolution actually says, would agree with you also. It is often only strawman arguments from creationists that try to make it say anything else. That and those who want the theory to say more than it does. Basic evolutionary theory says that "evolution" (like the Tao) has no "purpose" and favors humans in the long run no more than any other species (hence the reason that Crocs and cockroaches have been around much longer than us and wll likely outlast us, despite their being "dumb"). As for Reptilians....well, at least they make for interesting antagonists on scifi. In real life though, they are more likely remnants of old psychological fears (remember our early ancestors had to fear crocs, snakes etc.), and not real shapeshifting entities bent on ruling the monkeys. More likely that is simply delusions from those who don't want to accept that humanity is responsible for their own mistakes...

One should definitely not "ignore" the "anomalies" but one should also refrain from basing their entire view of human history upon them. When one reads the various research journals and those "nasty", "untrustable" studies done by people who actually know how to test fossils and bones, it is interesting to note that all these diverse people from different places find that humans never lived to be hundreds of years old. We never had "magical" golden ages where our technology and societies were more advanced and less damaging to the planet than now (obviously it was "less damaging" because there were fewer humans, but not that our "way of life" itself was less destructive). All the myths of society talk about them, but (just like the Book of Mormon) there is no evidence for it. So they either flew away on space ships, taking every stitch of evidence with them or, as occam's razor would suggest, they didn't exist (accepting that one cannot prove a negative, it is just remarkably unlikely). The ancient societies were just as modern archeaological and palentological research suggests, primitive cultures not all that far beyond what we see in modern ape "societies". Regarding lifespans, based on the majority of evidence thus far uncovered (again assuming they didn't take it with them to their new alien homeworld) humans have for a very long time had (allowing for infant mortality and disease) a lifespan in the vacinity of 70 years. The "average" is closer to that now, because we have more people who are able to eat and have access to medicines so they don't commonly dies from the flu or other diseases that once meant near certain death. Do we have modern problems that ancient people never faced? Yes, obesity related problems for example. New diseases that we have likely helped to create. Sure. But, our ancient ancestors did not have an advantage over us in their likelihood of reaching the ripe old age of 50. The problem with many books, just like the movie Loose Change and the various "studies" that Intelligent Design proponents espouse, is that they far to often focus on the art of debate (keep in mind that in logical debate on can rather easily construct a logical arguement based upon a completely false premise) with a small amount of "anomalous" evidence while ignoring the vast majority of the evidence. (that "anomalous" evidence, by the way, is not "discarded" by most scientists, most try to see where it fits, even if where it fits is based on chemical changes making an object appear older or younger than it actually is, e.g. the Shroud of Turin circa 1500 CE not 33) Science, no matter what the Discovery Instititute tries to tell you, is not some vast conspiracy to force "Darwinian Theology" on you. It is the pursuit of understanding. Apologies to all who took offense to the first or this post. It is simply disheartening to....oh, nevermind. Logic and reason are too often taken as dirty words nowadays. Good day all.

??? You have any peer reviewed studies to back that up or just more anecdotal evidence from your family? The "consensus" between science, comparing historical records and archeaology shows that people live long NOW, and that is djusting for infant mortality because people always try to claim the whole "no, people just seem to live longer because less babies dies artificially inflating the average life span". We can compare growth rings in bones etc. to see how old people were at the time of death. Every society has had a "Golden Age" myth just like most people look back on the times of their childhood as "the good ole days". The bottom line is it is wishful thinking and doesn't fit the evidence. The only "scientists" who back up claims that we live shorter or less healthy lives (admittedly we do now have problems with people eating too much, or over processed foods, but less death from common diseases etc) are those whose "scientific method" fits quite comfortably into those of Intelligent Design or Conspiracy "researchers". "Progress" is not always a good thing, it gave us the Bomb, but it also gave us Penicilin. We certainly need to reconnect with Nature, but we don't need to throw out what we have learned during the past few hundred years of scientific "advancement". Lao Tzu said to "stay with the ancient Tao, yet move with the present", we need not fear "advancement", it is like everything, a part of the Tao. Tao is not threatened by change, it flows through it. We need not fear having our myths destroyed. Keep the meaning behind the myths, but "move" with the new information as it becomes available.

That actually would pretty much sum up Watts' idea : )

Cameron, if you haven't read it you may want to check out Alan Watts' Behold the Spirit: A Study in the Necessity of Mystical Religion. He wrote it at a time when he was trying to delve into Christianity, so it takes on that form, but applies to all. He addresses the "Eternal Now" as the best "idea" of God. He also quotes extensively from the TTC and Zen writings. Sure he is a dead guy, but his thesis is a "do it yourself" idea.

Om Nama Shivaya

Isn't discussion "forbidden"? : ) As for a contribution to the discussion "I am divided for Love's sake, for the chance of Union..." Not to mention "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." (Will being ever in line with Tao..)

A fellow Exmormon interested in Taoism! As you can see, from the various posts on this site, unlike the regemented organization you are accustom to with the LDS church Taoism has many facets and traditionally the different sects respected each other as different sides of the same Tao. Homosexuality can be looked down upon (especially certain acts as one of our fellow bums has displayed recently) or it can be praised as an embracing of your inner yin or yang depending on your gender. For preaching, looking at history, Taoists did their fair share, especially as the early entrance of Buddhism to China began changing their place in the society (despite the fact that Lao Tzu seemed against it). As for community, Taoists can be a bit like cats (just ask Taomeow and Cat) and you know what they say about herding cats. This site has a good online community all on its own, and their are others. For a bit of online community with MANY who share your experience in the exodus from Mormonism check out http://www.exmormon.org/boards/w-agora/ind...exmobb_recovery as for IRL community you might want to do what many Exmormons do, and check out your local Unitarian Universalists. They are non-sectarian and are often quite Taoist friendly (depending on the particular church) and the services will be in a format that will be comfortable enough to fill your need for a Sacrament meeting (without the Sacrament on most weeks), except of course for the smell of freshly brewed coffee . Feel free to drop a line if you want to talk more.

Xeno, while not lodging any argument with your personal experience/study, such a generalization of "SKF" and "posters being bullshitters" is unfounded. To simply look at the various traditions one sees quite clearly that there is limited consensus on anything. However, in most traditions dealing with "chakras" one first opens the third eye or ajna then (if one is capable) one goes on to the crown. Certainly from a Taoist Alchemical perspective one can speak of various points along the "Orbit" or the Du and Ren meridians, though these do not directly compare to the Chakras of other traditions. If one speaks of the various "passes" of other Taoist texts, you do find descriptions of experiences similar to the one you have described, though again, one finds clear distinctions from "chakras". Again, this is not to question at all your personal journey nor the experiences you have had along it. However, you are in no position to call those who have claimed or inferred (note: this is coming from someone who has not and will not make such a claim whether or not it is so) "bullshitters". There are few if any texts or traditions to support your claim of a "one true route to opening the third eye", and considering the diversity of experience her, you can't know who has had what opened.

No matter what the tradition (unless you really believe it was started by some god that created everything) follow it back and sooner or later you reach someone (or more likely a group of someones) who figured out that particular tradition's practices. Or if you want to be more realistic, there was a someone who had an idea and afterwards (like everything else in human life) it was sharpened and tempered both by experience and superstition. Having someone to go to with questions is a valuable thing, though by no means a requirement for progress. (Note: As someone noted above, to be able to claim certain sects or traditions with any validity, one would certainly have to have a guru. Otherwise, nature and the Tao itself are incredible teachers, if one takes the time to listen.)

Interesting picks: Crowley a man who specifically avoided "the appearance of paying for spiritual teaching" and set up his order (a.'.a.'. not oto) with the requirement that no one accept money for teaching. And Osho, who dubbed himself the "rich man's guru". Not to knock Osho by any means (and it is by no means to say that Crowley was in it only for others. He had his prejudices and problems), he had a lot of interesting things to say. This is just to say, "interesting picks".

Ha! That just brought to mind a very weird scenario. A stereotypical female porn star, HAL and about 4 hours of silence interspersed with HAL saying "I can't do that"....Followed by a technicolor nightmare....

Okay, no disrespect intended, because the teachers at school (for TCM) give the same advice but...that makes no sense. We as a species did not evolve with blankets. Our "Wei Qi" developed with us under the stars and directly exposed to Wind in its truest form. Speaking as someone who regularly sleeps with no blanket and under a fan because the alternative would be quite problematic for a hot natured person in Houston... this really seems too similar to people believing that we actually catch "colds" from the "Cold" rather than from viruses. Related?...Yes...The same thing?...No. Speaking for "freaky people" there is evidence from the thousands of years of "freaky people" from all cultures that have found anal sex to be quite pleasurable and safe if practiced with a touch of common sense. "Wind" from a TCM perspective has its causes, but in our day and age one must temper this understanding with logic and modern understandings of bacteria and viruses rather than relying solely on age old superstitions. Just $0.02, brother.

No one said they were as sharp as carnivores. Only that they are "sharp". Our teeth work well for tearing flesh while retaining the ability to crush fiberous matter (i.e. plants). We fall, as was the point from the begining, in between. Using your example, put a tiger or a crocodile at one end and a cow or a horse at the other and our teeth share aspects of both.

You cannot really be saying that you don't consider the incisors "sharp" just because they don't have a pointy tip? The incisors are excellent for tearing flesh, just ask Mike Tyson. Our teeth have quite clearly adapted to be used for both meat and vegetables. Compare our teeth to a cow's and they are all quite sharp.

Hey! Not all the vegetarians : ) Some of us don't care what anyone else eats as long as it is not our pet.