Taoist81

Buddy, There have as you are probably referring to been a couple of studies that showed no significant difference between randomly placed (at non-traditional points) needles and traditional acupoints, though most do show a difference. On the other hand, the use of sham needles (that do not pierce the skin) as placebo have consistently shown significant difference. It really depends on what is being treated. Some ailments respond better to acupuncture than others, just as some people and species (ex. dogs & horses more than cats) respond better than others. The same thing happens with pharmaceutical medicines between races and sexes. Unfortunately the studies done thus far (including the ones that show positive results) have been far less than perfect because of the....intricacies of TCM (diagnosis, the number of points with multiple functions etc). That said, sciatica, while personal experience shows it to be difficult to treat, usually has some benefit from acupuncture. Did you only go once or many times? One of the difficult things to deal with as an acupuncturist is having patients who have had a problem for years, sought western medicine to no avail then after receiving little or no response on their first visit declare "acupuncture doesn't work". Especially when one has seen the effects in similar cases, just over a many treatments rather than one. One prof at school often suggests patients allow us as much time to cure a problem as they have spent suffering from it (of course, it never takes very long at all to see huge changes). Did you get relief otherwise? If so, if you don't mind sharing, how? Animals (dogs for sure from personal experience, and horses from what a person with some experience with them claimed) tend to be great patients. They just lay there very still on their own. Supposedly horses LOVE it, they just stand still and sort of get a high look (whatever a stoned horse looks like). Getting some adult human patients to be still can be a challenge on the other hand : ) Human kids can be tough too, but we usually do more tui na than needles for younger kids.

: )

When did this discussion lose its usefulness or become uninteresting? : )

Does that include the "experiences" of those who see Cris Angel or Darren Brown? The only difference between the "miracles" that they perform and those in these "masters" videos (or personal performances) is that the former admit (or rather are adamant about) the fact that they are trickery. Skeptics are not the ones making outlandish claims like levitation or pyrokinesis. Thus the burden of proof is on the one making the claims to prove that they are not just doing parlor tricks. Everyone here seems to hate Randi and his crowd, but there are numerous individuals who have similar challenges (there is even one man who was a fully trained "Godman" in India before realizing that it was all a racket). The claim that the "masters" don't need the money is bunk, because they could give it to those who do need it. They could do something tangible to help people rather than just doing tricks to get students who in most (all?) cases do pay them....hmm. All it would take would be one well put together (i.e. controlled settings, not like the flawed junk "science" used by Gellers "testers") study suggesting that any of these abilities were beyond our current understanding of the laws of physics to both inspire millions and further our understanding of the universe. There is nothing to lose by "masters" coming forward for real testing. If they really want to help people "ascend" or become enlightened, then they would present themselves, unless they are afraid of being found out. Any students who weren't worthy could easily be rejected, more students who are worthy would learn of them, and, again, it would further Humanity's understanding of the universe. No longer would these "ignorant" scientists hold the monopoly on "truth", all the masters need to do is prove that their abilities cannot be explained by basic tricks and modern physics. By the way, to the poster who compared skepticism to denying the world is round....you're using what is called the Fallacy of false analogy. The denials of the shape of the globe were based on personal observation, like the observation of a "master's powers". On the other hand, the information that the Earth was round came from the dastardly science, you know, mathematics and a grasp of the laws of physics. Obviously, science grows in knowledge and self-corrects, but that doesn't invalidate older laws, it simply improves on them.

Define "true taoist". Some sects would say yes, others no. Lao Tzu said the Tao was the "forefather of the gods." Of course, even if you don't believe in the gods, you have to admit they exist, if only in the mind of humanity.

Makes sense really. Though many are likely disturbed by the implications. It also carries implications for the actual mechanisms behind the various Qigongs and other Cultivation methods. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1378...s3_head_dn13782

Whether karma is the thing affected or the word you use to describe the sum total of a "process of cause and effect" (your words) is simply semantics. Either way karma is usually used to describe something that is determined (aka affected) in part (at the very least) by our actions (including cultivation whether or not you want to play word games as to whether cultivation is an "action" or not). Otherwise the word (that you so often use) becomes either meaningless or a synonym for predestination determined by someone other than the particular point of view that we call (for simplicity sake) an individual. Furthermore, everything in ordinary existance is manifest in the mind. How can one not see the cause and effect between past lives? Because one cannot prove one way or the other whether past lives exist or not. Again, beliefs about past lives are all in the mind. What one person calls "cultivated wisdom" another may call "a chosen set of beliefs". Some things may just happen, just as easily as they may not, illusionists are quite familiar with confirmation bias and use it to great effect, thus if an assumption is made it is quite likely that one may subconsciously "try" to confirm it. At the same time, everything happening now is in some way linked to the first explosion of spacetime. It is likewise a shame that "ritual" in the context of mystic traditions is looked down upon by some, perhaps your experience with ritual is what gives this impression, but a ritual properly performed....nevermind, you seem to have an aversion to the word so it is pointless to even continue. In the end traditions the world over (some with rituals, some with mantras, some with both, some with neither) have the same ultimate goal if you go deep enough into any of them. The way the Golden Dawn put it was "Blaspheme not the name by which another knows their god, for by blaspheming Allah you blaspheme YHVH, by blaspheming Osiris you blaspheme Christ" or something along those lines. The same goes for the ancient conversing between buddhists and taoists, until politics got involved.

If karma is a process of cause and effect, then by "doing" one cause you get one effect and by "doing" another cause you get another effect. In basic English (admittedly a limited way of communicating) that is affecting karma. And one can with wisdom, determine "right" from "wrong" in a limited way of speaking without even mentioning karma (and properly practiced right action should be independant of thought of reward or punishment), but one cannot objectively prove that there is any cause/effect between lives. Logically one sees cause and effect in daily life if one pays attention. In some Western traditions that is called Ritual practice. It is only degrading if you have been taught to see rituals as an unworthy practice. True that there is some difference, but they both cause change in the person using them. Both Western Godnames and Eastern Mantras elevate the "consciousness" of the individual so they can see beyond themselves. Just saying it isn't a ritual doesn't make it true. Right, truth is one which in actuality is none. Again, something that all traditions eventually lead to. Good to hear, though your statements often come across very one sided. Very, master so and so said it so it is true despite other traditions teaching the exact opposite (though we both know that "contradictions" certainly have their enlightening place). True also about the Buddha. He didn't teach sectarianism, his followers did, just like Jesus. Same to you.

Perhaps karma is not a "tradition" perhaps it is. Nevertheless what affects karma and how is seen very differently in different traditions. As it is there is no way to objectiviely determine which is right unless you believe the people who claim past life memories, in which case you find contradictory information and are thus left right back at no proof either way. A recitation is an act, and can thus be seen as a "ritual". Most in western traditions would say that by conducting a ritual is nothing more than "proclaiming the skill in means", the only difference being that in the west the words are called "godnames" and in the east "mantras". Once you see through the fog of sectarianism you realize that the ancient sages were right when they said "ekam sat"...truth is one.

As usual, it all depends on what traditions you are familiar with. Some would call the recitation of a Buddha mantra a "ritual" if used to direct a spirit in any way. Western Tradition sees any Willed act as a ritual.

By research do you mean that you looked at how you felt or do you mean that you found actual research studies that suggested you premise? As for oversimplifying, they took 30,000 men and the only correlation they could confirm was that men who ejaculated 5 or more times a week had at least a 33% lower chance of getting cancer increasing to >55% lower chance with age. They don't address infections. If your findings disagreed please post links. Currently this is the largest well known study of this kind.

Who are you asking about the definition of cultivate? So far the way the body works is "statistically" the same for most people without significant genetic defects. So it is presumed that human males that are meditating/qigonging/five element fusing, while having scientifically verifiable lower blood pressure, still have the same physiology as men who don't, even if they have more healthy habits. Since the decreased risk was directly connected with ejaculation frequency it would go to say "cultivators" (by whatever definition) would be similar. Regarding the study as far as was reported the control wasn't lax. This was a rather large study for the subject matter. On the other hand, the controls for anecdotal evidence (i.e. evidence of actual benefits of retention/celibacy) is completely absent. 30,000 men is nothing to shake a statistical stick at. (of course, a favorite quote from Mark Twain if memory serves is: "There are three kinds of lies, white lies, bold faced lies and statistics).

First, that was a quote from the article, not from Taoist81. Second, sure, we can agree that they did not have a control group for "cultivators" but, what they are describing is physiology. Granted it is possible that regular non-ejaculatory sex exercises the prostate enough to achieve the same effect, but there are no "cultivators" coming forward to show this. SeanD says his teacher's teacher is doing some research, but this has not happened yet, so it can't be commented on. But, the bottom line is you don't have any number of verifiable reports or studies of actual health benefits, only anecdotal claims. The claims in the White Tigress book could easily be chocked up to good genes, especially seeing as Hsi Lai (one has to snicker at the way that sounds to an English speaker "She lie") is the only real source to go on. This is not to say that it is false or whatever you want to call it, quite the contrary, it is hoped that you will report to us about your experiences in this tradition and your tale will be followed with great interest. It is only that there is no real evidence of any benefits to cultivation practices over basic meditation and good health/exercise. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that there are risks inherent in not ejaculating which unless there is real physical change in the physiology of the practitioner there is no reason to think would not apply to Taoist practitioners.

In Western Traditions (Crowley's variety at least) Crossing the Abyss doesn't necessarily mean "leaving". It is "simply" a crisis of attainment preceded by knowledge and conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. In such Traditions escaping the "wheel" is not the goal. One remains dedicated to ones students and other life.

True. Though, mysticism in general if seen as psychological phenonmena as opposed to objective reality can be quite fulfilling.

In the A.'.A.'. to cross the Abyss you are expected to "pour out every last drop of your blood" into the "Cup of Babalon". In other words you are expected to transcend the concept of self. Arguement is made on both sides as to whether Crowley acheived this as he claimed and was thus misunderstood, or if he was filled to the brim with nothing but ego. Though, crossing the Abyss is often directly compared with the Bodhisattva's vow. Most of this guys info is skewed. For example: In the Ritual of the Mark of the Beast that he talks about, the "Mark" is not a hexagram. It is either (interchangable) a seven pointed star (with or without additional symbols) which he notes is the number of god or a symbol of the sun and moon conjoined. While it may be conceivable that he could have stressed about being cursed and that the stress decreased his body's ability to fight the cancer, Occam's razor would say that he died because they simply weren't as good at finding and treating cancer back in the 30's. It was mostly the media that made a big deal about the "curse", kinda like WMD's....

Too true, the mormons (exmormon here) are always editing out negative facts from the LDS articles.... But you can always check the references. In this case the British Medical Journal and National Geographic are pretty trustworthy sources.

Okay, this cannot be ignored. The "archeologists" did not all die. "A study showed that of the 58 people who were present when the tomb and sarcophagus were opened, only eight died within a dozen years" The guy that lead the party didn't die until over ten years later of lymphoma. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_the_Pharaohs That said, who knows about "Melchezedic". Merkabah mysticism has been practiced by Kabbalists and Sufis (and their mutual predecessors) for centuries. Sufis practice a simple color meditation based on the attributes of Allah. The meditations of the Tree of Life and Rising on the Planes also have similarities. Looking at the writings of the suposed Ezekiel (who is the most well known viewer of the Chariot) show the profound nature of the Attainment. That said, no exploration of Self/the Divine is without some "danger". Eventually you look into the Abyss....

Yeah, it could always be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-Crutch_Li

Sylvia Browne has even less credibility than Uri Geller (if that is possible). She has even been proven wrong on the Montel Williams show....and he actually believes her. Not to mention that those who have been around her in a non-showbiz atmosphere get to see how mean she is, and of course if you mention this to anyone (or if she thinks you might) she "sees" that you are a "dark soul".... As far as "ghosts" go, it is nothing a good banishing ritual (from any number of traditions) shouldn't handle. Loosen "its" grip on the area and "it" should "move on" just fine. Though one should likely have all those who have experienced it present in case "it" simply has a connection to them.

That is sad. The act is where all the pleasure and meaning are.... Perhaps you need to work more on your feelings than your physical ability ability to control.

Girls around your age (a few years older) take it quite well. You don't want to say "can't" though. Rather say you don't want to. Women (especially those used to younger guys) are far too accustom to guys going early to be disappointed if you don't "go". It only takes a second to inform her, then make sure she understands you still enjoy it just as much. Often they will want you to cum every now and then (often just because they enjoy the feeling of you cumming) but most won't mind if you don't most of the time. As for the Oneida's you are right, they were having intercourse. However physiologically speaking, there is no difference. There is still arousal, plateau and (if you so choose) climax. The nervous system runs through the same phases, the difference is the "feeling" and "energy".