Taoist81

At our school they currently teach the Taoist 5 yin and 5 yang Qigong. Formerly, however, they taught the Eight Brocades. Recently (in part because of the White Tigress discussion) another list of "eight brocades" (as listed by the Hsi Lai courses among others) was noted. Does anyone know the differences between these? Most common: 1. Supporting the Heavens 2. Drawing the Bow 3. Penetrating Heaven and Earth 4. Wise owl looks backward 5. Swaying and shaking the tail 6. Leaning back and touching the toes 7. Punching out and gazing angrily 8. Bouncing on the toes Less common: 1. Heavenly Drum 2. Shaking the Heavenly Pillar 3. The Red Dragon Stirs the Sea 4. Rubbing the Court of the Kidneys 5. The Single Pass Windlass 6. The Double Pass Windlass 7. Supporting Heaven 8. Grasping With Hooks

Perhaps that is it. At school they only taught the standing set, so it had been assumed that the seated set was similar to the "most common" found set, simply adapted for sitting. The web seems to be lacking in discussion of the "red dragon parts the sea" etc. Have you studied the seated set? do you (or does anyone here) have a description?

It is only satanic to those who see Satan everywhere. Regarding "sun worship", this is a speech for the Winter Solstice that has become a favorite and seems useful to quote here: "The Agnostic Christmas. by Robert G. Ingersoll The Journal, New York, December 25, 1892. **** **** AGAIN we celebrate the victory of Light over Darkness, of the God of day over the hosts of night. Again Samson is victorious over Delilah, and Hercules triumphs once more over Omphale. In the embrace of Isis, Osiris rises from the dead, and the scowling Typhon is defeated once more. Again Apollo, with unerring aim, with his arrow from the quiver of light, destroys the serpent of shadow. This is the festival of Thor, of Baldur and of Prometheus. Again Buddha by a miracle escapes from the tyrant of Madura, Zoroaster foils the King, Bacchus laughs at the rage of Cadmus, and Chrishna eludes the tyrant. This is the festival of the sun-god, and as such let its observance be universal. This is the great day of the first religion, the mother of all religions -- the worship of the sun. Sun worship is not only the first, but the most natural and most reasonable of all. And not only the most natural and the most reasonable, but by far the most poetic, the most beautiful. The sun is the god of benefits, of growth, of life, of warmth, of happiness, of joy. The sun is the all-seeing, the all-pitying, the all-loving. This bright God knew no hatred, no malice, never sought for revenge. All evil qualities were in the breast of the God of darkness, of shadow, of night. And so I say again, this is the festival of Light. This is the anniversary of the triumph of the Sun over the hosts of Darkness. Let us all hope for the triumph of Light -- of Right and Reason -- for the victory of Fact over Falsehood, of Science over Superstition. And so hoping, let us celebrate the venerable festival of the Sun. -- " (emphasis added) http://www.infidels.org/library/historical...ostic_xmas.html

Fire Dragon, Could you give something of an overview of the system, perhaps for those of use who have only read the White Tigress book? Obviously the Eight Brocades play a large part. Is that the bulk of it? The eight brocades along with the practices with the Tigress described in the WT book, or are their other solo exercises? A type of meditation perhaps? The Jade Dragon book is not available in book stores around here and there are no previews available online. Without a way to check it out before buying, well, caveat emptor and all you know. Thanks.

Apologies, White Tiger, no offense was meant toward you. For some reason (perhaps just your name) it seemed you had said you were studying this system. Under that impression it seemed appropriate to admit a lack of experience and await your (and Fire Dragon, who has said he is studying Hsi Lai's system) comment on the results. If that is wrong, it was not intentional.

They didn't: http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

LOL. This just brought a couple of great quotes to mind: "Common sense is what tells you the world is flat" and "Bullshit makes the flowers grow, and that's beautiful." By the way, all of the links earlier on include discussions of freefall, gravity etc. and thoroughly address the supposed "squibs". Amen to that. : )

See, this is actually one of the biggest problems with conspiracy theories. They distract people from the real problems with the government. Rather than looking at what our government did to make arab crazies want to attack us, "truthers" just want to look at the demonstrably false claims that our government did it. Rather than working to fight against the horrible policies inacted with 9/11 as an excuse, they want to look at interviews of people who were in shock on the day of the attacks instead of looking at the physical evidence. Rather than paying attention to the real, albeit perhaps less ego building for "know it all pseudo-truth seekers" who think they are among the few who "see the truth", threats, they want to look at something that numerous independant (that means not from the government) studies have detailed and claim that the multitudes of people involved in these projects are all in on the conspiracy that supposedly only they, the "truthers", have figured out in their mothers' basements. You still haven't looked at the research available in the links earlier in this thread. You are once again regurgitating disproven information that is thoroughly covered.

You are just trying to be funny, right? All that airplane debris was planted too right? http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml This one has great photos for you and it is from a pro-conspiracy site: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 This one even thinks the government is using patsies to make the conspiracy theorists "look crazy" by making the "no plane at the pentagon claim": http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ppfinal.html

If one wants real answers they must not ignore them when they smack one in the face.

You don't seem to understand physics very well do you. This would be part of the plane that 9/11 conspiracy nuts claim was a missile, and part of the wreckage that your above comment claims was all supposedly vaporize. In fact the impact with the concrete wall of the Pentagon knocked off while the landing gear punched a deeper hole into the center ring. Impact doesn't cause charring, fire does.

You aren't adding fuel to anything, rather you are picking at charred remains. Your claims are the same ones that have been proven false before. You are rehashing old (bad) information and outright falsehoods. The fact is Cheney was trying to have his people tie Saddam to 9/11 within a couple of days. Not to mention that the president can't (at least couldn't, who knows with the "Patriot Act") initiate a war without Congressional approval. Though, since your claims about Bush and anthrax are not cited there is really no point in discussing it. As for "no wreckage" at the pentagon: Please open your mind and look at the above links for the massive collection of evidence available. You are clearly missing the huge difference between 9/11 and the false flag operations that have happened before. WWII was entered (in part) because of Pearl Harbor, about which, again, the most one could claim is that we had a bit of a head's up.

It is not so much an "emotional charge" on the subject, as it is a "getting tired" of all these types of things. Be it Intelligent Design, Holocaust deniers or people who still think there was a second JFK shooter. These all have one glaring thing in common: they ignore the evidence that explains the questions Conspiracy Theorists raise. Like your example of Silverstein's comments, to keep beating this dead horse you have to ignore parts of what he has said and all of the rest of the semantics of "pull" to make it fit the "official" conspiracy story: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm False Flag operations have been known to history, but 9/11 wasn't one. It is not about "data mining" (if you look at it honestly, that is the term for what is used to "prove" the 9/11 "thruth" claims), it is about honestly looking at all of the evidence. Again, this is not to say that the government is some benevolent force for good in the universe, they used this tragedy to push for every nasty thing they wanted and many more people have sadly died for lies. They simply did not do what 9/11 "truth"ers claim. Careful pissing in the wind, friend, it could get blown in your face. : ) Not to equate the two, just to show the divergent groups that agree on the matter. Plus, Bullshit! is a very entertaining show. : )

Depending on the degree of nuttiness, that is sometimes the best response : )

The most you could argue based on the evidence is that the government should have been better prepared and that they had some warning. The same was true of Pearl Harbor. However, based on all available evidence, and, contrary to what people like the director of this film claim, there is loads of evidence, the official story is pretty dead on. Hijacked planes, all three buildings, no explosives other than jet fuel, 19 hijackers (none of them are alive), shoddy handling by NORAD and most importantly and most often forgotten in these discussions: thousands of dead humans and many more affected by this. The facts are available. Saying the government covered up their stupidity is a far cry (and could feasibly be true) from claiming they did it. Brother, it really would be good for you to look into the links. You are like millions of us, persuaded by fallacious arguments rampant in this conspiracy nut group. You will be amazed at how much can be proven plain as day that they deny. Peace.

you probably meant "accept", but.... See this is why the term "crap" was used above. Anytime the evidence is pointed out about this tragedy, all the 9/11 "Truthers" do is say "oh, get over it, the government did it, screw physical reality and all the evidence to the contrary!" Pointing out real evidence is just too "blind" and "trusting of the government", this despite the fact that many who have looked at the evidence (like Libertarians Penn and Teller for a showbiz example) are very distrusting of the government. They just accept what the evidence actually shows and don't give the government, especially the Bush administration, that much credit. By the by, you guys do all know that there was no man on the grassy knoll, right? New digital analysis confirmed it, just like forensics debunked the second gunman "head flying in the wrong direction" hypothesis. Oh, and the moon landing was real, that has been proven too.

Because all of these points have been debunked to death no time will be wasted retyping or even cutting and pasting the facts here. Just to start you off, since you may have missed the "google" comment above here are some links to educate yourself with. All of your questions are covered, as they are simply regurgitations of old, bad information. And your comment about scientists and pilots is misguided. IDers can find "scientists" out the wazoo that will claim that only the Bible can show us the true Science, that doesn't make it true that the Earth stood still for a day. In the following you will find plenty of information to the contrary about both pilots and scientists. Oh, and they use real evidence, not just "hey, why would they have said ____ in the middle of the largest crisis any of them had ever dealt with. He had to have meant what we want him to have meant!". http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm http://www.debunking911.com/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...aw/1227842.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I

The arguments are no different than the other "members" of the 9/11 (pseudo)-truth movement make. A quick bit of Google fu will lead any open minded seeker to point by point analysis of each claim from any number of sources both so called liberal and conservative. They even had the film-makers of Loose Change come on NPR and debate with the guys from Popular Mechanics. The scientific approach of the latter was clear as was the conspiracy tell-tale tactics of the former. Scientific American has a good selection on both the case by case debunking of 9/11 (pseduo)Truth claims and Intelligent Design. Various Universities have looked into it....the list goes on. Also, it is not just a liberal/conservative or Democrat/Republican disagreement. For example Bill Maher ("liberal") and Michael Medved (uber-conservative) have taken time to use their forums to discuss the evidence and while they disagree about just about everything else in the universe, they agree on this.

This crap has been debunked so many times by so many different people (and different types of people) that it is really sad that it still gets people's attention.... From Popular Mechanics to Penn and Teller....real evidence proves that there were 19 hijackers and they flew the planes into the towers, the pentagon and the field in PA. Building Seven was a loss that is easily understood by basic science.... These people are just as bad as, Creationists like the Discovery Institute, and interestingly use the same tactics to "prove" their preconceived notions.

Check out The Web That Has No Weaver. Excellent for reference while written so as to be readable for those not familiar with TCM.

You have already had the only advice you really need multiple times: See a Licensed Acupuncturist. Meridians and "important points" are not just around the ribs and pelvic area, they are all over the body.

This is simply not true. The Dalai Lama had already begun to reach out to the West in some ways before the invasion. Buddhists have never been ones to sit on their hands. After all, the Bodhisatva vow requires them to help others. All of the perceived "good" could, and in all likelihood would, have come about without the murders and rapes that went with the Communist take over of Tibet (not to say that everything was peachy there before).

No, the only reason the link above was used (as explicitly pointed out above) was because it discusses the actual Sanskrit words used by THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR, not her translation or insertion. Regardless of how she translates anything else in the book or any other book), if the ORIGINAL AUTHOR used "lingam" to describe the penis then her abilities otherwise as a translator/scholar are unimportant. The Kama Sutra has seen relatively (compared with say, Taoist texts) little difference between translators, thus, since other translators have not translated the word in that text as "Image/mark of Shiva", we don't have to rely on her interpretation. Again, the above link was not an endorsement of any one translator (regardless of the fact that she also had two other co-authors for the translation in question), it was only used BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSION OF THE SANSKRIT WORDS IN THE ORIGINAL. They even point out the rarity of the use of lingam when describing the penis. Bottom line, lingam usually means all that you have pointed out, but it can and has been used in the past (by Indian writers) to describe the penis.