Perceiver

I recently changed my sexual drive.

I am now only interested in a meaningful interaction with women with whom I truly connect.

I no longer have much desire for "conquer-sex" with women that I don't know. And that's good. I wasn't getting much of it anyway.

My interest in porn is gone too. Neither do I feel a need to masturbate. I still have my sexuality though. It's ready for when I meet a woman that I find interesting. But the need - and frustration - about unfulfilled sexual desires is gone.

How did I accomplish that? - By being brutally honest with myself: Why was I masturbating? Why did I watch porn? From what level did these desires come?

I realized they were based mostly on frustration - and from a non-love perspective. That made them altogether irrational. I decided to cut porn and masturbation completely. A couple of weeks into it now and I've never felt better.

Thanks for the advice guys.

I think I'll start a journal - starting from today. Think it will help in making my thoughts more clear, and it forces me to relate to them in a more conscious way every day.

I wrote down some of my limiting beliefs yesterday on paper, and I think it helped. When I think about the scenario I feel impeded today..

You raise an interesting question, Trunk.

I'm a few weeks into a non-masturbation period myself, and the first week was hard. But now it seems almost natural, and I've got so much more energy and mental clarity.

What worked for me was to review my general approach to sex: Why do I masturbate, and why do I desire sex with women that I know I will never be with anyway? Is it rational, is it doing me any good?

I realized that my sexual thoughts were based on frustration mostly, and that they were inherently irrational. I realized that what I really wanted was to have a meaningful sexual relationship with a girl that I could relate to.

That's when I lost interest in porn and masturbation. Has been going on for nearly a month and never felt better .

How does one become more honest with oneself?

Over the years i have become more honest with myself; what i think and feel, what i really want out of life, and what my fears are. I'm feeling better and better as that journey progresses. It seems to me that part of growing in life is simply to become more honest to your own truthful inner voice.

My qigong exercises have accelerated this journey, something for which i'm very grateful. But i'd like it to deepen even more.

I still sometimes find myself not being able to act on my real emotions.

Let me give an example:

I am in my early thirties and single. I don't have a girlfriend currently, and one of the things I want out of life is to find a woman I love and start a family. When I walk down the street I see lots of interesting women, and often make eye contact with them. A couple of years ago I thought "why not go over and say hi?" So I started doing that from time to time, and it's going well. I have been on dates and had a relationship that way. Even when I don't get the girl's number they still comment me on my bravery and we usually depart with a smile.

So that's all great. But here's the problem: I'm not as honest with myself as I would like. I still chicken out of situations where I could go over to a girl, and I notice that I do it because I lie to myself. I tell myself that "well I'm not so interested" or "well I might meet another girl another day". I have missed out on a lot of interesting opportunities that way. Been doing this for two years and I still have this inner blockage.

Does anyone know any qigong methods that help to reduce the ego, and awaken more to one's inner voice? Perhaps I will eventually come across those exercises, but knowing them now would be interesting .

thanks

If it does not feel uncomfortable then why does it worry you?

The statement about meditation is very misleading and the author appears not to realize that "standing in stillness" and most exercises of "micro cosmic orbit" are in fact meditation exercises. They are highly energetic forms by comparison to typical sitting meditation (with slowed breathing and out of trance). Pan-Gu is not a label I am familiar with so I am not commenting on it.

I guess it's just a matter of definition and the extent to which you want to obsess about it. What I mean is that doing the one-pointed breath/mantra meditations can generally make things worse if you haven't smoothed out the energy flow yet. However once you have things under control, and ensured that you can ground energy and corrected any serious imbalances, you can resume meditation, which I do today, after having implemented the above exercises.

I saw someone linker to Biology of kundalini, by Jana dixon. Please bear in mind that she lists zero evidence for all of her claims, which probably means they're all based on her assumptions or personal experience. That does not make them wrong per se, but it does not make them right either.

I had this happen to me about 3,5 years back. Can relate to the headaches and sleepless nights. It can be really disruptive. Today I would say that 95% of my physical side effects are gone. This is my advice:

• For general information and advice you might want to seek out Michael Winn who is a qigong master. He had a kundalini awakening himself and can tell you lots of helpful things. The guys at kundalinisupportnetwork.com are great too.
• In terms of energy exercises, I can recommend the following: Stay away from meditation until you have things under control. Meditation only increases your energy levels, which is something you don't want if you're too unbalanced. In general, the exercises that have helped me (and really helped me a lot), are the exercises that focus on grounding the energy into the earth, making the energy cycle in the body more smooth and integrating opposite energy cycles. The three exercises I can recommend are: Microcosmic Orbit (do it slowly), Standing in Stillness and Pan-Gu. All can be found on Michael Winn's DVDs. I can also teach you them via Skype if you want to.
• In terms of food then most people will want to avoid things that give your body a "shock" such as large amounts of sugar, energy drinks, large amounts of white bread/pasta/rice or junk food. Most people say that a more complex diet with meat is more helpful.
• Finally, one of the most important things: Don't obsess about it. Don't go on an anxiety rampage and think "oh no, it shouldn't be like this". What happens, happens. Observe it and accept everything that is. This is important also when the emotional changes start coming. Believe me. Accepting all of this crazy stuff is the path to greatness. Whatever you experience, accept it.

Best of luck!

Sorry beyonder - my mistake. I must have confused your post with another one.

Beyonder:

Taoist sages lead normal lives?

Well they don't become sales and marketing managers, government officials or banking executives, if that's what you mean.

But normal lives? The taoist "sages" or close to - that I know - are writers, artists, teachers, businessmen, adventurers, lovers, friends, warriors.

I suspect they lead the most intriguing and nerve-wracking lives you can think of. Which, however, may be quite normal..

Egotistical?

Only if you believe in meeting a killer's knife with a loving embrace. In which case it will be the only and last time you'll meet it.

To be alive in the world is to be responsible for unfolding your own existential purpose and respecting the unfolding of other's in a meaningful and loving way. The indiscriminate killer does the exact opposite of that. And that's why it's fair to stop him.

Is deci belle still insulting people to feel better about herself? Filling the hole that will never be filled?

Deci, go out and explore the real world. Go out and drink in the fall, meet people, fall in love, follow your dreams, rejoice in the mystery and magic that life is. I know I would, if I wasn't home-bound right now. Because that's where you'll learn about the fullness of life, and not just the emptiness.

Sure, your writings are fine enough in themselves. But once your posts are decoded they're really nothing new. The same kind of insight can be found if one reads Ken Wilber or even Eckhart Tolle. The strength that you have is that you're good at applying it to various situations, once all your "i'm so intellectual and eloquent oh boy look at my ego" is decoded. You'd reach a wider audience if you just relaxed a little and didn't have that great need to impress.

And stop bullying and belittling people man. It's a really, really bad move. You make people sad. You're leaving negative karmic footprints all over these threads dude. It's not very nice and it's not very enlightened.

Now come back to humanity deci belle. There are many great things out there to be amazed at. Once you get that going, there's nothing that will not pique your curiosity. The smile will come easily to your face and most importantly there will be no more need for belittling people.

Yeehaa.

I should probably add that I am and have always been an atheist myself. There's no religious angle to my question. I believe in facts and reason, and the most scientifically validated answer we've got is still the Big Bang, evolution and patterns arising out of seemingly non-planned randomness.

But that still leaves a couple of questions: What came before the big bang, how did something arise out of seemingly nothing, and if there was something, how could something always have been, and has this something always been physical forms?

It's the question that just won't die. Except that we're going to produce the final answer in this thread of course. Ahem .

Gerard:

Maybe we will never know if forms were created at some point or always have been, but the question is still damn interesting wouldn't you say?

I don't know.. I somehow feel there is a rational answer out there - waiting to be discovered. And I think discovering it may be a great step forward in understanding reality and its cause, which I suspect may not be a cause.

The post by Daeluin - especially his copy-paste - is a golden nugget of wisdom. I suggest everyone to read it. Here's what I gained from it:

In order for god to be he cannot know where he came from. Why? Because he cannot know where he started. He cannot have started because the start would always imply a first cause behind which lies a cause-behind-first-cause and so on per infinity. God could never know this first cause as it would mean the undoing of everything that is. In order for something to be, there must be, by definition, a cosmic mystery. God's existence is that mystery and he cannot know why he came about or why, as it would imply something out of god, whereby he would not be god. That is why he is doing the only thing he can do: manifesting, and moving the mystery to ever greater heights of understanding about itself.

But that still leaves one question: did god do this all the time, or did he decide to do so at one point?

Anoesejka:

What I can't figure out is the following: How can something come from nothing? Something can only come from something. Yet if that is true, how can something always have been and have no origin?

Your writing on matter and anti-matter is interesting, but has this been scientifically proved? To my knowledge, an absolute void has not been proven to exist. Space is, as you probably know, not an absolute void either.

My definition of a God would be the following: A first cause which is not a cause. He simply is and always has been. Ultimately, everything arises from him as he is the frame from which reality arises. He knows it all and nothing is not within his gaze. He possesses intelligence.

The world is and we are. Reality is.

Now, has reality always been? Have particles always been changing form? Has consciousness always been emerging? Has God always created or did he decide to do so?

There is no soul, bob. Soul would be dependent on a separate self, bob. Ya got no separate self, bob. Taoism doesn't do separate self, bob. Are you on the right website, bob?

 

You are definitely on the wrong thread, bob.

 

Try the recreational philosophy department… bob?

 

Comprenez-vous?

 

 

 

 

ed note: add last line

Deci, your way of speaking to people makes them sad.

It's not very nice to go around and make people sad, or do you think so?

This thread is the funniest thing in the whole world. You're making a rather simple, yet valuable point. A point that would be so much easier to get if you laid off the overly elaborate language, the self-references in third person, the subtle sexual cues and the belittling of other people which you seem to be gloating over as you sit behind the screen and creates an alter ego that is meant to be desirable. Not to mention your one-liner classis "I have a post called "about me" - I suggest you read it just so you know who you're dealing with". Ego, anyone?

You speak about non-ego, yet you don't live it. You're the most ego-gratiyfing person I've ever come across. I've met other people like you out in the real world who have a constant need to be "above" others. They're all of them trying to fill a hole inside, and their desire to be desirable is existentially doomed as their insecurity is revealed as soon as they open their mouth. This thread is not just about reality. It is just as much about you. You need this. You want this. You get a kick out of establishing yourself as the focus of people's attention, trying to desperately get some of that perceived social value.

I see you still haven't reverted on me pointing this out earlier. How come? You don't seem to be the kind of person who is lost for words.

Waking up to reality is waking up to its true nature. Reality is that you're unique and invaluable, yet no "better" than anyone else. Reality is empty and full in all of its splendor. Reality is perfect as perfection is the natural state of the eternal is. Reality is also love: A subtle smile that unavoidably is there. A smile that smiles at the obvious perfection of all that is. The joy of being, which in that state simply is and always has been. An unavoidable love and understanding for all that is in this world. Not to be confused with relativism, but as the inherent understanding that all forms are of the same source, and are evolving and self-transcending towards greater heights of self-realization as the only natural law of reality that is.

You don't live that. If you did it would radiate from your being. Don't tell me that enlightened beings come across as big and arrogant assholes, because that is not the true nature of the eternal reality. You've understood the cognitive part of reality, but you're missing out on the empathic one. It is witnessed by the constant ego-dances you display.

Maybe I should just ignore these threads because after all you're allowed to write about whatever you want, in the way that you want. Watching your self-defeating ego dance is funny. The only problem is that you belittle and bully other people and make them sad. This is not a nice thing to do, and it's only counterproductive to learning. People have a tendency to gravitate towards inherent truths if presented with them. They will do so more effortlessly when their own ego is not visibly at risk and when they're not being spat in the face like you do.

Perhaps the best reply to you is simply what GrandmasterP wrote in the beginning:

Ed note: Ignore deci belle.

Job jobbed.

Anoesejka:

Yes, Time would per definition be God too. Because what is time after all? It is the witnessing of particles changing form, and then applying your own standards to that.

But that still raises the question: Have particles always existed and have the always been changing form? Or did they start from "something". And if they did not start from something then how can something come from nothing? And if that nothing is God, then we're still stuck with the scenario that God one "day" decided to create?

Has God, Source, The Tao or whatever you call it - always created or did it begin to create at some point?

#1 God has always existed and always created.

But how can an act of creation have no beginning? The physical is finite and transient. Surely it must have some beginning? Being does not need a beginning but creation does?

#2 God has always existed. But at some point he decided to create.

But wouldn't time and thoughts then apply to God? If God "decided" to create he would be subject to time: There was a time before and after God created. Time would now apply to God, yet God is supposed to be outside of time. Decisions, and therefore thinking would also apply to God. Yet God is outside of thinking due to his perfection. He simply is, and does not engage in choice-based decisions.

I've been thinking about this the past two days and I can't find the right answer. It's driving me crazy . And I sense there is great wisdom about the nature of infinity hidden somewhere within in it..

There are some good insights in this thread. Many of them quite simple, yet powerful.

It seems to me the best pearls of wisdom are often surprisingly simple. If not always so.

Whether Deci is enlightened or not is anyones guess, that's for her to figure out. But her posts certainly have a power to point one in the direction of the recognition of reality that she speaks of, and not just in a conceptual sense. I think her mild ascerbity is part of her charm. She's more Kali than Kuan Yin, which is great if you're ready to have your head cut off. Maybe not if you just need some mild water poured on your head. In which case, go find a Kuan Yin. Deci wields a flaming wisdom sword. Make the most of it. If she wants to walk around in 5 inch stilletos (or are they flip-flops?) and a $500 bra stalking the back alleys of online forums cutting off heads and recruiting sleeper agents for a revolution of consciousness, I personally am cool with that. She's like a character from a Grant Morrison comic. Maybe you're right, she might be pretentious and caught up in her own identity like the rest of us, but even if she is she has something to offer.

I agree.

But this thread is not about enlightenment. This thread is about her.

It's comical. She's trying so bad to seem enlightened - to seem non-ego attached. Yet her own behavior gives away her true intentions.

An enlightened person would have said the exact same thing much simpler and quicker. It would have easened the burden for everyone, including herself. Plus it would have avoided the sadness created in the posters who questioned her ideas and got belittled as a result. And she would have no need for all the props she uses to boost her own perceived social value. Bras and stilettos.. Give me a break.. It's comical. It's no surprise that exactly those two were chosen. It's the direct way to get the attention of men; to get their craving and thereby sit back and let your ego enjoy the supposed higher social status that it just created for itself. Another cycle of self-reference all in the name of ending it, of course. That's why it's so unwillingly funny.

It's like the hipster who wants so badly to be perceived as being non-reactive to the outside world. The hipster who trots down the street with chronically raised eyebrows and a deliberately ironic look on his face. As if he does not care about fashion, trends or ultimately the opinions of other people. Yet in his visible clinging to this self-created hierarchy he reveals his own deep dependence about other people's belief. If he was so non-reactive to begin with, he would have no need to flaunt it. It would simply be.

Same thing about Deci. She creates a thread about what reality is and how the ego has nothing to do with it. But all of her writing and props are in the end created to serve her own ego. Her own self-created and self-referential hierarchy. Even her profile name implies it. If she was so enlightened, there would be no need for all of these things. Instead, there would be simply a smile, and a great understanding and empty interest that is endlessly infatuated with everything that is in this world. Her writing style would show that. Instead, it shows an obviously intelligent woman sitting in front of her computer creating digital bras and stilettos all in the effort to "achieve something". And that is not enlightened.

But that being said, she does have something to offer. I enjoy reading her posts, unwillingly comical as they may be. And I would encourage her to continue making them. Partly because they're educational. Partly because they are some of the funniest ego-dances I've ever witnessed.

The first one you mentioned is an intellectual understanding. That is setting up the path to the 2nd. It's all it's good for.

 

The 2nd is experiential understanding. This is the whole enlightenment thing, but you don't have to have sudden realisation to reap the benefits of abiding in the Unborn. Enlightenment in itself is delusion because the self that becomes enlightened is not the real self. The awareness-self cannot become enlightened. The point of being nice to people begs the question of who you are being nice to. It's the illusion-self of others. Therefore compassion would be to help break down that illusion by any helpful means, no matter how it is perceived at the surface level. In seeing yourself in others it would possibly be a great disservice to yourself to not want to break down the illusion of others by any means.

Yes, I think I know what you mean: You cannot become enlightened because the real you is the awareness that per definition already is. And therefore, enlightenment refers to a false self that cracks and fades away as soon as the real self takes over. Or rather, the real self does not take over because it does not do anything. It simply is, and the false self is no more. And therefore enlightenment does not exist because there is nothing that can be enlightened. There is only the awareness that is, and the delusions that no longer repeat their own patterns of self-reference.

If I've understood it right then that is actually a very good point.

But there's something I don't understand about Deci's posts. If you want people to get the idea then there's no need for doing it in ways that create unnecessary irritation and sadness in them (irritation is sadness). She could be just as effective - perhaps even more - if she simply stated things in a relaxed and friendly way. There's something about her posts: The overly intellectual language, the constant re-editing of her posts, the deliberate flaunting of her sexuality, the belittling of other posters. All of this has the mark of an ego that *wants* to be perceived in a certain way; that wants to be desired and admired; an ego that craves attention and high social value; an ego that sits in front of the computer and thoroughly enjoys and wants this dance that is put on.

I think Deci has understood a fundamental point about enlightenment. But I'm not sure she lives it. Because if she did, she would realize that some of her posts cause unnecessary sadness. And the only thing that is going to accomplish is to drive away those who react to their own ego's perception of insults. Such people could be moved to enlightenment quicker by showing an appreciation and understanding for their ideas, followed by one's own and more complex idea of enlightenment. Thereby they would not automatically reject your ideas due to their ego, but would gently be convinced of the inherent truth in your own and more complex belief. Quicker enlightenment, with less sadness.

And my guess is that those are the ones she is pretending to "enlight" isn't it? If not, there would be no need for her posting this thread in this forum.

Walk a mile in my flip-flops, dear~ you obviously have not done much research into the lives of prior illuminates have you.

 

No matter… Just make sure you walk every step you take in YOUR shoes, and don't worry about others, hmmm?

 

Nothing is gained by complete perfect enlightenment. One of the early Chan patriarchs was poisoned six times over the course of his tenure. He died by poisoning, by the way. Just forget your ideas about how enlightening being should be.

 

By the time beginners have ears for anyone worthy of note, of course they are only going to be perceptive to the tip of the proverbial iceberg, and the teacher's hagiography has been fluffed and buffed like a movie star for at least a thousand years by that time.

 

Like I said, enlightenment isn't a thing beyond you. IT IS YOU. Why haven't you seen your nature? Don't waste time thinking about what enlightened people should be like. Use the same delusional phenomena I do to refine yourself. It's all there is to work with. Are you so friendly with every asshole you meet?

 

Who is it that thinks someone doesn't act enlightened? You would do well to find out who that is and then we can see how you do in the same circumstances while you are then able to be knowing full well that no one is not this same enlightened mind. Should I not also wear 5" stilettos and a $500 bra just because I'm enlightened? I hope at least that you have the sense to crank one of a number of 50 to 100 watt amps to meltdown distortion more often than you bathe— as I do.❤︎

 

 

 

ed note: spell "bathe" correctly.

I find your post interesting, but there's one thing I don't understand:

It seems to me that you say I am not enlightened because I still identify with my mind: I think, and associate the thinker with "me", even though the real me is not the thinker but rather the awareness that per definition is not the thinker. As Sarte said: "I am because I am", instead of the old "I think, therefore I am".

But isn't there two types or "levels" of enlightenment? The personal one which is to recognize and live the notion that the real you is not the thinker but the awareness that precedes the thinker, and the cosmic enlightenment which is to discover your connection and oneness with all that is? And if someone is cosmically enlightened would they not be interested in being friendly with other people as they recognize themselves in them?

Enlightenment has nothing to do with playing nice in other people's eyes. Sometimes people need a bit of a kick in the backside whether they like it or not.

 

Your idea of enlightenment is created by the very delusion that this thread is about. That's ok. I think everyone starts like this. It would serve you well to get what deci tries to say in her posts. Maybe you'll soon ditch the image of enlightenment that you've created in your head. It will never be correct.

To be honest I don't know what enlightenment is and I have never really studied the topic much. I probably reacted to what I saw as a subtle hostile behaviour in Deci's posts towards Goldisheavy, who questioned her ideas. And it didn't seem that enlightened to me: Why be hostile when you can be friendly?

But that aside I think you make an interesting point. And it actually makes me wanna reread Deci Belle's posts.

Greetings my friends

Some of you may know me from the many anxious questions I've posed in here, but today I'd like to do something different . Today I'd like to share some knowledge I've gained, and encourage you to do the same. Hopefully it will create a long thread of compact wisdom for others to enjoy.

As I've read the forum the past months I've been impressed with the amount of wisdom that can be found in here. I've been a member of other forums in the past: Martial arts, personal development, illnesses, and never have I read a forum where there seems to be so much wisdom as the one we've got here. And not only is there wisdom, I also get a "feel-good" vibe when reading the forum. I can't really explain it, but it seems to me that the people in here are relaxed, confident people who genuinely like life and other people. And such people are in my experience the most interesting and pleasant ones to be around.

So I'm partly interested in tapping into your wisdom, and I'm partly interested in giving back some of my own. Consider it a kind of positive payback for all the help I've received in here . So here's my question: What's the most valuable thing that taoism or qigong learned you?

I'll start with an example of my own. And I'll admit that it can be hard to give one. Partly because I learned so many things from qigong. Partly because my qigong path this past year has coincided with a period of incredible personal learning - and I don't know whether that was in the books to begin with or if qigong has produced it. Perhaps it could be a bit of both.

But there is one learning point which stands out for me, and that's something I learned directly after doing Michael Winn's Pan-Gu exercise for a week: I learned that I can always communicate my emotions to other people, and that they of course will accept them, because they are my emotions.

It just hit me how obvious it was. For instance in the past when I felt bullied or irritated I would bully people back. But sometimes that only produces more conflict and suffering. It's rarely as effective as we would like it to be. After doing the Pan-Gu I instantly knew that in such a situation a more effective technique would be to be honest about my feelings and say "would you please stop it, it's hurting me". Noone in their right mind would be able to continue their obnoxious behavior after a person has voiced their pain in this way. I wish I had known that decades ago. Or maybe I did know it, I just wasn't ready to accept it.

The end result? A yours truly who is a lot happier because life just got a lot easier: Because whatever I want or feel, I can always communicate and it'll be received in a positive way. The only exception being of course a situation where a person just rubs you the wrong way without doing anything officially wrong. In such a situation it is better to just keep shut and play ball .

Looking forward to hearing your input!