The way I heard it during a sexuality KY seminar -and according to what Yogi Bhajan had previously stated - was that men should only ejaculate about every six weeks rather than expending their sexual energy and that women were "allowed" to have as many orgasms as they wanted as they carried the burden of the red tide every month...

Now, while the teacher who did this seminar pointed out that one should sort of consider this, he did feel it was worth mentioning that the manner in which Yogi Bhajan expressed this idea was articulated in rather antiquated, colloquial terms and at times, in a somewhat sexist framework as well.

For example, it was explained that men "gave" their energy to the woman who absorded it, integrated it with their own and then mirrored it back to the male. On a gut level, this makes sense to me...but at the time, I didn';t quite care for the manner in which it was relayed, apparently somewhat verbatim per yogi bhajan

Be that as it may, it seemed like a fairly common sensical notion to me: that guys prolly don't need to be expending their sexual energy all the time and...

that women are in fact orgasmatronic entities and that they should be plentiful and earth shattering and that the female orgasm will save humankind...if we don't destroy the species prior to devising the orgasma-energy collecting devices to provide a natural energy source for our increasing energy needs....

BUt that's another story: I'm still working on getting the grants to fund the research to make the giant orgasm energy net.

In other words, keep the womenfolk happy and healthy and don't go blowing off yer seed at every image floating by on the internet.

~V~

>Ryan-You are so far astray here.

Afraid not. It is you who are uninformed.

>Please point out how Buddhism has anything to do with this topic?

Sure. I’d be happy to. However, the fact that you are unaware of what "Buddhism has to do with it” says a great deal about your level of historical understanding.

>Kundalini Yoga and Ayurveda both stem from Samkhya, which is Hindu philosopy.
> Healing Tao, obviously, relates to Taoism. No Buddhism here.

What we were talking about was seminal retention in qi-gong and kundalini-yoga. So, I’m afraid you are deeply wrong about the being “no Buddhism here”.

Both qi-gong and kundalini-yoga (including seminal retention) are practiced in Buddhist traditions. I have been practicing Buddhist qi-gong (Yi Jing and Xi Sui) for about 20 years and have been researching Buddhist kundalini-yoga for roughly the same period.

Mantak Chia bases much of his teaching on practices of -Buddhist- origin. These include Yi Jing Qi Gong (what Chia calls “iron shirt levels 1+2), Xi Sui Qi Gong (what Chia calls “iron shirt level 3”) and Shuang Xiu (what Chia calls “healing love”)

KY does not have its origin in Samkhya. It originates in the yoga of the early tantric mahasiddhas. There is more or less strong evidence that the Kundalini yoga evinced in the early Buddhist Yogini-Tantras is earlier than any parallel system of Saivite (or other Hindu) KY.

If you care to share the names of the Sanskrit texts on KY which supposedly pre-date the Buddhist sources I’d be most interested. However, given that a scholar of the caliber of David Gordon White was unable to do this, I doubt you will be able to.

Whether or not the Buddhist system of KY is the oldest, it is certainly a relevant tradition, as it strongly influenced the Natha Sampradaya (and its approach to KY), which in turn is the source most relevant to the approaches to KY in contemporary times.

>Your desire to pull from Buddhism and Tibetan (Buddhist) Ayurveda

I haven’t spoken of Tibetan Ayurveda on this thread.

>To be nice; you are mistaken.

It is you who are deeply unaware of the history of the systems you are discussing. This sort of historical ignorance is widespread to be sure. I am just trying to contribute some information to the thread.

If somebody commenting on (or correcting) what you write offends you, don’t post a public group like this tribe

>Pull all the Buddhist Tantric literature you want, we are discussing Taoism
>and Hinduism.

We were not discussing Taoism and Hinduism. We were discussing kundalini-yoga and qi-gong, which are both traditions with important –Buddhist- branches.

>Perhaps you will throw in some Christianity or Islam to prove your point?

Unlike Buddhism, Christianity and Islam don’t have traditions of kundalini-yoga and qi-gong that have influenced later Saivite KY and “healing tao” qi-gong.

>To suggest that seminal retention encompasses women is the most absurd thing I have
>ever heard. Conserving energy by seminal retention in an exclusively male practice.

Would you are to elucidate which Chinese term is being translated as “semen”? I’ll be waiting for your answer (but not holding my breath).

Generally, the terms used in the Xi Shui and Shuang Xui literature I have studied refer to both the male AND female sexual energy/secretions.

Chia translates the SAME Chinese term as “seminal energy” or “ovarian energy” when speaking of men or women respectively. However, in Chinese the term is the SAME with both genders. So, while Chia may speak of retaining seminal or ovarian energy, the texts from which these teachings derive speak of retaining the same “substance” regarding both genders. This is also true of the Saivite and Buddhist kundalini yoga traditions. If you hadn’t been so eager to “prove” me wrong, you might have learned that by now from what I’ve already posted.

>Your comments are so sexist, to think that women should have to use this term,
>you should check yourself.

When did I *ever* say that women have to use the term “seminal retention” or even use the term to refer to practices done by women? I’m just pointing out that the same yogic techniques are used by both sexes and that the original Sanskrit and Chinese literature on these topics use the -same- terms for –both- sexes.

Personally, I think “sexual secretions/energy” is a better translation of the Sanskrit and Chinese terms for the very reason that it is gender neutral.

>Both man and woman must redirect energy through the Microcosmic Orbit,
>what the classics call the Small Heavenly Cycle.

The practice used to raise sexual energy is NOT the Xiao Zhou Tian (Small Heavenly Cycle). Rather, it is what Chia calls “draw nectar to the golden flower” or the “big draw” which involve raising energy through the cerebrospinal system NOT the du mai (governor vessel). The fact that you seem unaware that they are separate practices says more about your level of understanding than I ever could.

Best Regards,
Ryan

"Kundalini Yoga and Ayurveda both stem from Samkhya, which is Hindu philosopy"

Kundalini Yoga was first introduced to this world in a clear systematised form by Lord Nagarjuna the Buddha.