sunshine

Aside from what I manage to understand and what not... I haven't stated that Serge or I claim these to be bliss techniques... and just in case you get it false... I am not speaking for Serge... Harry

Thankx Ya Mu... really do hope to meet you some tome in the following years... ralis: www.drtanshow.com neutralwire: I am not really arguing about anything here. Actually I do hope do get some more insights. I am in no way claiming of what the other guys claim to be my belief... but sure enough it tends to "influence" me and make me wonder about a few things. >>Essentially what you're arguing is that the entire structure of the universe in both microcosm and macrocosm is going to change so that what used to be true is now wrong?<< Well. No. What was right was right... but with change it might just not be applicable any longer. >>The number of traditions which progress through a series of spheres on the way to the formless is very large -- I only mentioned a few I know of. Now this argument you've been given is, the further you progress into what you think is enlightenment, the more you're actually binding yourself in with the 'Lords of Form', and at the end of the process it's 'too late' and you're 'theirs'. Right?<< If I got the idea right it is like that: humanity developed from the breath of God... at the beginning it was still resonating in the "frequency" of God... but the farther away it came from God it lost its original resonating frequency and started to vibrate in a modified one. While one could argue that if the universe actually is God and we are in God, this can not be true... I feel the idea to be quite fascinating: the farther we are away from the original source the less we are in direct resonance with it, while its "sound" still can be in us as a seed we do not fully recognize. >>Each sphere you go through is more rarefied than the physical and than the last. Whatever tradition you're speaking of, earth is the beginning and it is most dense. You move away from form. How can you simultaneously move away from form and also become more trapped in form?<< Well. If you believe you move away from form as the illusion (by whatever "false practice" induced) leads you to believe you do, then there is no doubt it is at least a possibility to become more trapped in form. >>And if it's true of Hermetics, it's definitely true of Kundalini yoga. The stuff I learned from Glenn Morris worked very similarly -- there is an ascent and there are levels of the universe -- there always have been and there always will be. These things are not going to change just because there is a 'new age' on earth! People are still using these methods right now for enlightenment. The entire hierarchy of angels and genii and gods is not going to suddenly become an evil entrapment for humanity, and the celestial spheres are not suddenly going to warp out of shape!<< Well. In a way this discussion could be viewed as the discussion that is often discussed: do we have to develop something or do we just have to peel of the layers and get to the core. Serge would likely claim that all this energy work for ascension lets you ascend into an illusionary spiritual paradise ... he would say that learning bliss techniques, techniques that just make you feel good but cover your underlying true emotions thereby not letting you deal with them lead you away from the true essence of God... don't quote me on that though with smiles Harry

"Ya Mu": I do have 3 of the 4 boosk on Esoteric Acupuncture somewhere. As it is this teacher claims to have been getting certain needling patterns transferred by D. Khul. Some are just fo healing, many are a kind of laying out a path for spiritual transformation and "ascension"... on that side you can find examples of some of these patterns. I personally am not so much into TCM... more into Japanese Acupuncture & I enjoy Dr. Tan's utilization of I Ching Acpuncture... what I wonder is: say we have a shift in north/south pole, which supposedly is pretty close, actually overdue... will that change the flow in the channels? And if we actually enter a new "energetic area"... that might render some of the chakras useless for example (just an assumption) and might change much more in the energetic pathways of the body. with smiles Harry

Can't really agree with you here... to me the trouble is when one wants to have a person close but can't for whatever reasons... for some reason one is "lacking something"... and it is not in essence the question of whether you have sexual intercourse or not... Harry

I am too late, am I not? Happy Birthday may you always be Tao-blessed sending smiles Harry

A happy day, last year I went to a congress in Germany and there was a French practitioner who did extensive studies on comparing the carotis pulse with the radial pulse... going back to Ling Shu chapter 9. I am now trying to get his booklet on the subject but unfortunately I do not know French. If there is any practitioner out there interested in that material and would be interested in helping me out to translate it, that would be cool. I am not yet sure what I could give in response except pointing out right now that there is a DVD & book out there by Skip Van Meter on Jingei Pulse Diagnosis. He belongs to one of the initiators of the so called "workingclassacupuncture" movement in the US. sending smiles Harry

Celibacy and semen retention... one of those beautiful topics we can chew on for eons... as with most other topics one will always find good "proof" for one argument and good "proof" for the other... I have started to view things in terms of tradition and hardly in any general manner. If a tradition hands out a practice and says it is damaging to you to have sex... I'd better be careful. Sure. Try it out if you are up for negative consequences just to prove they are all wrong... they are traditions who do not emphasize it same way, same manner... To me one of the most horrible aspects of all this talk is the induction of guilt... and if you feel guilty to have ejaculated THEN it FOR SURE is much more damaging to you then just the ejaculation itself. relax guys with smiles Harry

One thing I repeat in my position as a doctor with patients having life/emotioal etc. problems is a statement Bill Harris from centerpointe has made... and this one has followed me since I started the program years back... it is similar to this: "every new order on a higher level is preceded by chaos" we will crash. For sure. If they do what they do this is going to happen... and this will be the best fundament for something much better (or at least different) to rise... one day it will be hard for anyone to ignore what is running behind the curtains we are not there yet but we will be maybe we won't be part of that happening but we are heading towards it. That is evolution! until then we can "only" work on ourselves with all optimism one has to have in this world and a lot of confidence Harry

There is a big big trouble when people try to say: "one thing counts for everything/everyone else" it is a fact that we are genetically pretty close to some ape populations... it is a fact that Gorillas (as far as we know) eat no meat (but still proteines by all the insects they consume) while chimpanzees do go hunting and kill other ape populations once in a while tpo eat their meet. Their jaw structure clearly allows for this as does ours... with smiles Harry

??? If I remember right it's already happened in Australia... it is planned for the States and it is planned for Germany to come... it will happen all over the world... no prob though. They will soon learn about the results... and then will have to change everything back everything will be fine Harry

I suggest to read some Ken Wilber. It is likely that you won't get anywhere if you do not develop all aspects of your being. If you reject relationships of any kind you reject experience and thereby reject growth. That means: falling on your cultivation ladder one day for sure as you lack development overall. Harry

Sincere thankx, Ya Mu Harry

Thankx again, Ya Mu in case it hasnt yet been discussed: how many hours of training are necessary each day and can it be combined with other energetic/spiritual practices from your systems point of view or is it counterproductive to do so? Harry

Hi Ya Mu, I very much hope somebody interested like and with the capabilities and connections has read what you wrote and will help you organize a workshop over here. Should I get into a place to do so I will contact you. Just allow the question. You spoke of a 500 hour training, right? That are many many many weekends to come over and teach... or would the teaching structure be different then? thankx much Harry

>>But I have no need to post them UNLESS people are interested. So please say whether you find these posts interesting or not. If not I will not continue this thread.<< Hi Ya Mu, would love to repeat it here. Should you ever start teaching in Europe or have a reliable student over here doing so, please let me know... thankx much in advance Harry

Should you ever start giving seminars in Europe... I would enjoy to meet you As an MD I am very much interested in your healing art... Thankx Mal for jumping into the circle Harry

Oh man. I was talking about the topic of meat but not your topic of "beef". You missed my point completely... but that is fine, especially as it is a perfect example of/for miscommunication and misinterpretation... and I assume that 5000year old study of nature can have a lot of misinterpretation at its core... thankx for the exchange Harry

To make my point more easy... lets get back to the most wonderful topic of meat. Some claim meat eating is against being highly spiritual, right? Some say: that is not true! right? Then the answer by the first to the second is: You have no true "Inner knowing". If you had it you would know that eating meat is against being able to rise spiritually high! Then the second would say: "sorry dude. My inner knowing is that there is no problem to eat meat" Give me the true falseproof differentiation between the two to make clear why the one is right and the other is wrong, the one has "true inner knowing", the other "not". Depening on the way the universe is configured there are different possibilities! a) Only one can be true... the other has to be wrong. Both are true. Getting back to Ya Mu's point: "But like Mak Tin SI says, it is not a "feeling" but a knowing. Each Light Being that passed through the same level of knowing knew the same thing, so it is not about different paths arriving at different conclusions but about the truth. Of course as one continues in evolution there are always Higher Level truths. But here is the core; As one evolves the truths don't change, only the illusions dissolve." Above might be true... but there is no way to for sure say that there is not a different category of light beings that walks a seemingly opposite path. And those share the same reality go through the same levels of experience and understanding... BUT those do not fit that of the other category of light beings. One false the other true? Whom to say for sure? "Inner knowing" it can hardly be... as only in one case it might be true... Harry

Thank you, Ya Mu

I very much can. While the last several monthes have confronted me with quite unusual encounters it was so much life and alive that I have had the experience and not just the imagination... although I sometimes wonder if it is all real Harry

>>What's the cure? For me it was something that happened in the poor old material world. A touch of destiny that made me into something better, for somebody elses sake...<< Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo beautiful. If you can imagine what I feel right now you feel wonderful >>So, a "close encounter" on the internet, that lasted some 6 months, does not count? For me it made all the difference... Seeing a part of a person that is rarely exposed, to the usual students at least... That's just one of many reasons, so much for confidence of knowing as little as me, sorry to bust your confidence in that. << See. As you remember I wasn't that much interested in that story. Cyberspace to me stays cyperspace as honest and true we two might meet here. The difference to me is in meeting a person in reality. This tells much more I feel. I might be wrong though... >>The only problem is in your mind, and it won't go away, or be healed, by jumping from one practice to another.<< I am not sure what problem it is that you refer to... I have only one. Being a sceptic from the heart... and this sure enough won't be solved by jumping around from practice to practice... and maybe exactly that "problem" is either what saves me or will never let me get anywhere... I have stopped worrying about it. I have found peace in just walking and enjoying my life... wherever it might lead me. It will include hurt and joy and maybe by oscillating between the two there will one day be true insight... a guarantee I have not... but none of us has. So why bother? Whatever the talk around David. I found my end with realizing I can't keep up with the "demands". This was enough destiny for me... a practitioner with a burn out is a practitioner that likely won't get very far. One thing is sure, though, Little. Due to some experiences in the last several monthes I have come much closer to that part of destiny you referred to... it is not yet that close... but it is not endlessly far -as it once was- either... >>I hope you won't take it so personal.<< If you believe it or not. I consider you to be a friend Harry

Oh. It is not that you do not express yourself clear enough. Your English is much better than mine so I would much more worry that I just don't understand you... but even that is not the case. From the Science of Phenomenology we know that looking at an object from different sides we add our understanding to what it looks like in the parts we do not see. But looking from different angles we might perceive things completely differnet and have even much more deviating ideas... I want to tell you this little "joke" to make my point clear. Even though we share the "same" language we don'T necessarily assign the same meanings to it... be it 5000 years of study or not... "A Native American Indian and a Cowboy meet somewhere in the desert. They use handsigns for communication: the Indian points his right index with the thumb up at the Cowboy. The Cowboy answers with the "peace" sign... the Indian forms the roof of a house (or pyramid) with his two hands and the Cowboy waves his right hand like in the wave/movement of a snake. Both go separate ways again... the Cowboy reaches his home the same evening. Entering through the door he immdiately looks at his wife and say: Sweetheart. I have met the most crazy Native American Indian today. He said "I shoot you down"... I answered: I shoot you down twice. He then said: "shall be better go home" and I answered: "get lost"... so the Native American needs a few moons to get home... but finally reaching his destination, he smiles at his wife and giggles: "I have met the most bloody stupid Cowboy ever. I asked: "What'S your name." He answered: "Goat" I: "Mountain Goat?" He: "Water Goat." Getting my point? Harry

Thankx much, Ya Mu I am well aware that this is not really a good topic to argue about... as one is likely going in circles. To me there is one important core trouble in all of that... I assume that the techniques we learn and practice lead to a certain destination... be it in feeling, perceiving or whatever... different techniques, different aims, different perception... different inner knowing in the end? And even if you share the same experience or "inner knowing" with someone else... there is no guarantee that there is nothing that might be a step higher and a step higher and a step higher... I am glad if someone is sure to have the inner knowledge, I just have a trouble if they claim it has to be the only one as there is no fixed guarantee that there is just one at least I assume... Harry

But - Ya Mu - that is the core trounble we face. People from all pathes of life talk about having the "true knowledge"... they all claim that. They all claim "inner knowledge" and I doubt that most of them are about near to each other in that. Harry