Taoist81

Sounds like someone needs to do a banishing ritual. (Google: Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram. Very effective ritual for clearing negative influences and connecting with the divine while simultaniously rooting.)

Seeing that Crowley has been brought up a few times in this thread, it is worth noting what he thought of the "two" systems "mysticism" and "magick". Crowley wrote that basically they were two different routes with the same ultimate goal, one going outward and the other inward. In the A.'.A.'. one is required to master (and is tested on) both to progress through the grades, first building up (things like the Body of Light and certain magickal abilities) then destroying. The two major milestones in the "career" of a member of the A.'.A.'. are the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel (i.e. Union with the "Higher Self") and the crossing of the Abyss. Both require something of a silencing of the "ego", but the latter involves the complete dissolution of it. Failing to completely let go of it (something which one prepares for years, or, more often, decades to do) results in being lost to the Abyss and being forcefully "torn apart" therein. Both Magick and Mysticism have the end result of One, then None. They only appear different in the lower practices.

All good points. However, the plastic surgery is an example of relatively cheap products from "healthy" competition. Cosmetic surgery is probably the least common thing to be covered by insurance, so, plastic surgeons have to compete and this results in one of the most cost effective types of "medicine". Make primary care Dr's compete that way (and get rid of the regulations that stop them from providing low cost health care) and prices will fall. And as plastic surgeons reputations prove, they will still be rich despite lower prices. Of course, you have to get rid of medicare along with general health insurance. QUOTE(James Madison @ ostensible father of the Constitution) I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Awesome quote. Where did you find that?

Google "compersion". Poly-folks us the term to describe a feeling of joy from observing a partner in a new relationship. Look up polyamory and you can find lots of tips from experienced people on this topic.

That is the one place that government is actually good in the economy, trust-busting and protecting against monopolies and fraud. Most monopolies only become possible through government protection of a particular field or corporation. Subsidization is not capitalistic, it is quite the opposite. Advertising is just called propaganda under non-capitalist systems, but it is still there. Capitalism doesn't "hate" anything, it is a simply system and it is dependant on competition. Some of the companies may not like competition, but capitalism doesn't exist without it. No amount of MSNBC/Michael Moore-esque mantra recital will change that. The bad behavior (often government supported) of individuals or groups doesn't make a system bad. If you don't like Wal-mart, don't shop there. If you don't like government subsides, vote libertarian.

The only way to make healthcare more affordable is to get both the government and health insurance out of primary care coverage. Both cloud the actual cost of tests, doctor visits etc. making it impossible for the market to regulate prices. This guy makes the point very clearly and eloquently: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200909/health-care

Assuming she is using only legal means to get public information about you (if memory serves, there is nothing illegal about having someone's plates ran), there is probably not much you could do by filing a report with the police based on what you describe here. You could try talking to a lawyer to make sure. The above advice is probably the best, just change gyms. Get away from here, and as you do so let the management of the gym know that this is the reason you are leaving. That way maybe the next "Bruce Lee-bodied" guy won't have to deal with what you have.

Somehow this reply was overlooked back in '08. So here is a reply to a couple of the points. While there is certainly a need in our society to integrate a more holistic outlook and treatment (i.e. preventative) system, drugs that fight viruses and bacteria are absolutely necessary to save lives in many cases. As for the "arguements" against the so called "AIDS hypothesis".....IT IS NOT A HYPOTHESIS. HIV can be looked at with electron microscopes. We can further see through many other tests which types of macrophages are affected by the virus, even what parts of the virus affect what cells and in what way. The research done by diverse individuals and groups has thoroughly discredited the kook claims of the AIDS denialists. The claims that the anti-retrovirals to treat HIV cause AIDS has been busted by the millions of people whose lives have been greatly improved by the drugs, and by the continued tendancy of HIV positive AIDS denialists to spread the disease and DIE. All of the claims that HIV does not cause AIDS are beyond irresponsible. As for your claim that one must not have known "what the counter arguments about AIDS are and have not bothered to look". Actually, it is possible to read something and be fully educated on it while understanding that it is a load of crap. Taking ads out in newspapers is not how real research is published. Peer-review is essential for qualifying studies. This is the same thing as the (un)Intelligent Design movement's use of publishing persuasion peice books, instead of actually conducting research and publishing what they find. They are deciding on an outcome and trying to prove it, instead of actually testing their hypothesis. Some African health officials used to deny AIDS, but they have more recently changed that position in light of the continued deaths of millions from AIDS (or AIDS related ailments). Now, Peter Duesberg is credited with influencig the design of the public health program in Africa that is responsible for over 300,000 preventable deaths. Lastly, the comment about "severely altering one's sexuality" was not to imply that non-monogamous practices are pathological. Quite the contrary, polyamory can be very rewarding and swinging is quite the lifestyle for some people. However, neither are the mainstream. So, for the vast number of people, adopting a practice in which a man watches his wife or girlfriend (because most in the west would not be simply pairing up with an assigned Tigress) give oral sex to strangers would be quite a shock to the system. This type of practice is a very common fantasy for Western males, but seeing it carried out in real life can be, for lack of a better word, trying for people. On the female side of it, some women fantasize about the same, but again, for the majority of women, giving oral sex to strangers (especially with the idea discussed in the book on not seeing them again after 9 or so times) can be...intense. None of this is to say it is "wrong" only that when the human psyche is exposed to "extremes" (a relative term) taken on for a given goal (be it boot camp or initiation) one is likely to experience a form of Stockholm Syndrome. The "reward" seems more valuable or worthy because of what you went through to get it. Not right or wrong, just psychology.

Another one: "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter" And if memory serves it is "Try not, do or do not. There is no try." Just like the "Luke, I am your father" thing being a misquote.

Feng Shui was built on the I Ching, just like lots of Taoism.....

Wouldn't a more accurate way of putting it be, one shouldn't be "attached to" material things? Just as we consider an ant hill, beaver dam or bird nest "natural", our animal (the animal being the human) made products are natural. We are only harmed by "holding onto" these things. When watching the ebb and flow of the universe, and understanding that this applies to us and our "things" too, the desire factor is tempered and controlled. Worrying too much about not being "into" things, can be as harmful as being too "into" them.

In terms of acupoints, this is Stomach 17. It is not used (actually contraindicated) for acupuncture or moxabustion, though massage should be okay, there is no contraindication in Tui Na for it (except lawsuit material). That said, in The Art of the Bedchamber: The Chinese Sexual Yoga Classics Wiles has a note about this particular translation (the book is not here at work, but you should be able to find it online). If memory serves he questions the validity of the translation, stating that the translator mistook one point name, for a similar point name on/around the penis.

Both of them are hormones that mimic those released by the body during pregnancy. Energetically you will get any number of (probably conflicting) claims, none of which can be proven. Physically, women tend to have difficulty keeping weight off, emotions can be "funky" etc.. Googling "side effects" + either and you will have a more comprehensive list than can be given here. If you refrained from ejaculating then the chances are extremely low that she will get pregnant, still, if you are that worried about it, a personal recommendation would be to go with the MA pill, so she doesn't have to permanently/sepi-permanently take the pill, then be more careful with the condoms.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/200907...winvisiblelight

Some of you have read some of Dr. Changs books. How do you feel about his versions of some of the exercises. His 8 brocades (in The Complete System of Self Healing) seem even further from the usual than the broad range of demos usually available of this exercise (ex. "imagining lifting a dumbell" instead of supporting the heavens). Any experiences here? The 5 animal play also seems somewhat unusual. Pros/cons anyone?

Certainly not as bad as the conspiracy nutters make it out to be, but more and more nanny state intrusion into peoples lives. Hopefully one day more people will get that the world needs less government, not more. Like Lao Tzu said 2,500 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_alimentarius

Franklin, Thanks for the response. Yes the book does seem great, it was just the apparently significant differences between his versions and the "usual" versions taught other places that stood out. Have you noticed differences in the effects of his versions vs. others (of the 5 animals/ 8 brocades etc.). Some of the stuff in the book seems quite similar to traditional methods (with extra info) while other parts are very different. The Yi Jin Jing are quite different as well. Thanks again. Taoist81

Topping to see if anyone might have info.

Actually, you are "mis-remembering" his speak at a science FICTION writers convention. There he stood before other writers and said that writing for pennys a word (they were basically paid by the character then) ws stupid. That if a man really wanted to make a million dollars he would start a religion, that is where the money is. Around a year later he published Dianetics, which would be the foundation of Scientology. "L Ron" was not a scientist. When he wrote the higher OT levels (like the stuff with Xenu) he wrote that the teachings shouldn't be restricted, but he himself kept things quite concealed from all but the highest in his inner circle. One example was the fact that he was using a high number of psychiatric meds before he died, despite not allowing others below him to us any of them. He was anything but a benevolent man by all accounts.

Here and a few other places mention has been made of "additive free" or organic cigarettes being "safer" than regular cigarettes. The rationale has been that it is actually the additives that cause the problems with smoking. (Taomeow was one who mentioned this) Now, the abundance of research published shows that these types of cigarettes are just as (if not more) damaging as regular additive filled smokes. Usually this is swept away with the suggestion that these liberal (or right wing depending on who you ask) groups only publishing or promoting studies that support their cause (taking down Big tobacco, protecting children, mind control, whatever). This topic has recently come up in IRL conversation and as of yet, google etc. have revealed NO studies (as in zero) that actually support the idea that additive-free smokes are safer. For those of you who support/believe this, could you provide some sources (please no anecdotal evidence, real studies)? It would be useful in this on going conversation. (A while back a reference was found that pipe smoking could be shown to be relatively safe, but that was not in reference to organic etc. cigarettes). Thanks in advance.

Ma Huang is legally available from L. Ac.'s. However, most of the herb companies (Golden Flower, Kan etc.) have removed it from their patents, strangely even when it is the King herb....

These two statements are mutually exclusive. It is fine if a person chooses to eat only fish or chicken and no other meat, but if they do, they are NOT a vegetarian. This is not intended as an attack on your diet, by many accounts fish is a good thing to have (this poster doesn't eat fish or other meats), it is simply a pet peeve when people call that vegetarian.

Unfortunately, for most people living in poverty, the lower calorie "diet" results in much shorter life spans and much worse health while living.

Anyone who wants to gain from what little there is in Scientology to benefit from would be far better off looking into the FreeZone, instead of the Co$. They keep all the practices, but drop the Org.

Liar? Perhaps at times, though not likely any more often than most. Pedophile? Where do you get that from? He was many things (and many of them not very admirable) but that is one that is something of a stretch. Yes, Confessions was quite a read (years ago), and heavily imbellished. Much of his supposedly "inspired" works and his more technical guides are much more useful and most are very well done (admittedly much of it was information lifted from the Golden Dawn, but he streamlined a bulk of it). He spoke quite highly of a number of people he found accomplished (including himself). Though, as you have obviously noted, he spoke quite loudly about the flaws he very often saw in others (and, again, himself for that matter).