Satya

The Dao Bums
  • Content count

    172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Satya

  • Rank
    Dao Bum
  1. Hello, (apologies if there's another thread that covers this, but I couldn't find one) I was just wondering what the basics/typical LDT cultivation consisted of? Microcosmic Orbit seems pretty universally similar: inhale up governing or conception vessels, inhale down governing or conception vessels (depending on fire or water orbit), but so far I've come across differing descriptions for LDT cultivation. If people could post what they consider to be the standard basics of LDT cultivation and/or what the following authors say about it, that would be much appreciated. I'm interested in what the following people have to say: Ken Cohen Michael Lomax Jerry Alan Johnson Michael Winn Mantak Chia Glenn Morris Chunyi Lin Bruce Kumar Frantzis Terry Dunn Yang Jwing Ming and anyone else you think is worthy mentioning. Cheers guys
  2. Got the blue rumble roller. Really good. A weird combo of nice and pain whilst applying it, haha, but afterwards it's brilliant. Like it wakes up your nerves, as well as releasing tension. Good call BKA.
  3. Hey, So, I know there're a lot, if not majority of practices that involve just watching the breath (in the whole body, just at the belly, at the upper lip, etc), but, doing some reading, I'm just wondering if there're any practices that would be called meditations that involved being mindful of the breath whilst intentionally doing deep breathing. Some of what I've read is unclear. If you could post examples, preferably with references, of controlled mindful breathing, that would be much appreciated. Just as one can be mindful when you do anything that YOU'RE DOING (walking, eating etc), I don't see why you can't be mindful when controlling your breathing, and, if one is doing deep, embryonic or longevity breathing and being mindful of the practice, then, that has the added benefit of slowing metabolism, relaxation response, calming body mind, etc. Thoughts are appreciated.
  4. Post 31 http://thetaobums.com/topic/35922-how-does-all-of-this-neidanneigongqigongenergy-stuff-relate-to-non-dual-truth-and-enlightenment/page-2
  5. Nature = Good

    You could try to use this as a get out clause of ANY act that inflicts suffering. Discussion in the 1800s/1920s/1940s Person A: Let's stop beating slaves/slavery in general shall we? Person A: Let's stop treating women like second class citizens shall we? Person A: Let's stop this genocide shall we? Reply from Person B to them all: Suffering of one creature is nothing in comparison with the magnitude of the universe. You see? It's an incredibly dubious statement. Try and put yourself in the position of anything or anyone who's rights have been violated. Extensive reasons as to why meat eating, and especially factory farming, is so terrible, detailed here: http://thetaobums.com/topic/35770-eating-meat-and-the-whole-jazz-around-it-was-sacrificing-an-act-of-love/page-2 No point going off topic. All my points are there.
  6. Nature = Good

    That was the goofiest thing ever, not even The Doctor could help it Ha, yeah, it is a bit goofy. But, to me it provides a really (well done) unstable feel, that (again) to me led to an effective questioning of my own reality/decent self inquiry. + I like the line where he's moaning about (paraphrase): "There don't seem to be any rules in this game, what's the point? I don't know what I'm doing?" And she kind of implies that that's the point of the game, to not know and to try and find meaning (or just to not know). I thought that bared a good parallel to life itself, and a lot of Non-Dual literature. I thought that the uncanny valley was a globally human/cross cultural thing, not limited to westerners? One of my best buddies is doing a PhD around it. For anyone who doesn't know what it is and wants a very concise explanation of the phenomenon:
  7. Nature = Good

    If you haven't seen it, then the film existenz has a similar theme. It might help for ideas. I personally don't agree with and don't understand your seemingly completely anti-nature absolutism. Were you bullied by a tree as a kid? (haha). I have provided many evidenced, logically reasoned, and in many cases axiomatic reasons why natural/organic approaches are at least sometimes preferable, but you seem to be ignoring all reasons/statements that suggests that nature is a good thing, and you seem to be completely dead set on your idea that technology is always better and nature is always worse. The world is not black and white, it's very multicoloured. Absolutisms don't serve people, they limit people, and worse, they usually end up harming people (those holding absolutist beliefs and those around them). Your story is arguing against these absolutist anti-tech people. Is it not obvious how your absolutism is potentially as bad as theirs? IMO balance is key.
  8. Nature = Good

    No, we're obviously not. We do not have a planet that's covered in solar panels, tidal, wind and hydro generators. We're not powered by 100% renewables. The technology is available, but power structures, corruption, autocracy, greed, etc, and many other reasons mean that it's not yet widely available. We're from 'there'. As I've clearly pointed out, we're NOT 'there'. I thought it was pretty obvious, but maybe it's not, so I'll show you how the points about farming and cycling make not jus a lick but many tongue-fulls of sense . You said: And of course I agree. What sounds easier/better/sane. Driving to and from work, 20minutes total. Then driving to and from a gym, 30minutes total. Spending one hour in the gym to improve mental and physical health, 1 hour total. All the while polluting the atmosphere through driving and using a gym that requires power that pollutes the atmosphere. 1 hour and 50 minutes total. OR, cycling to and from work, 1 hour total, and then coming home and doing whatever else it is you want to do. In this scenario you still get 1 hour of exercise and all of its benefits, you haven't polluted the environment and you've saved 50minutes of your time. Which is easier/better/sane? I think, obviously, unequivocally, option number 2.
  9. Nature = Good

    Absolutisms are generally limiting. IMO, this is a bit over-generalised. Tech is GREAT, but nature is GREAT too. The key is to know when to go with what approach. I think your pity is incredibly misplaced here. Working with your hands does not = misery or happiness; the same applies to working at a computer. Pretty much ALL of my professional, academic and even recreational activities in life involve sitting at a computer. I love what it can do, no doubt, but I experience issues from it too. In the past, when I was younger, any labour/more active jobs that I'd done felt much more beneficial to my mind/body/soul. I felt happier when coming home after doing jobs with lifting. There are plenty of happy people in the world without any tech. Studies of brainwaves of monks have shown them to be some of the happiest people ever measured. It's meditation, which has nothing to do with technology, that's brought this happiness. I didn't mention fat people exclusively. You can be plenty unhealthy and thin. The fact is that there are a plethora of physical and mental health problems in the developed world, most all of which could be relieved, prevented, or even cured with exercise. So, whilst I agree with: , whilst we're still waiting for them to crack fusion/make it viable, and/or for a LOT more renewables to be laid down, until we have non-toxic (or at least MUCH less toxic) sources of power, if we can kill two birds with one stone, for example by having people rely LESS on powered tools/items/transport and doing things manually wherever they can, wherever makes sense, wherever doesn't cost time (as in my points above; cycling, farming, no powered tools where possible), so they can get tasks done without pollution AND get exercise at the same time, then is it not obvious that we should? Yeah, if we had a planet that was covered in solar panels, had tidal, wind and hydro generators everywhere, if we were powered by 100% renewables, then, yeah, sure, why not go on our electric trams to jog on a treadmill; in this future world it wouldn't matter. But we're not there yet. I think a lot of people would disagree with you on that. I'm not an absolutist either way. A lot of my friends edge toward denouncing tech in favour of nature but I appreciate both. However, generally I think that nature untouched by man is far more beautiful than most any human made thing. There is of course some beautiful human made art and music. Music is one of those things that's human made and doesn't really exist in nature, but that doesn't necessitate tech. Acknowledged, when it comes to cities, of course, health tech, sewage tech, etc, all make a much nicer place, but still, compare this to living in a yurt in the open air, I think this would have been much more beautiful. Also, technology isn't all good. There's things like the side effect of tech, the big flippin massive patch of ocean filled with toxic plastics: The Fukushima disaster: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/nuclear/safety/accidents/Fukushima-nuclear-disaster/ And many, many, many more. All examples of the ugly side of tech, and the unconscious habits of humans.
  10. Nature = Good

    One major step that requires no revolution is strict ethical consumerism, one of the last remnants of democracy that we have left. Support the good and boycott the bad. Research every purchase. This is a good guide: http://www.ethicalconsumer.org http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides.aspx If everyone did this then a lot of issues would disappear. It's irritating because really our regulatory bodies should be preventing the horribleness around the world, but they don't, because (no conspiracy reading/believing required) we've got our money pipeline attached to our 'democracy' pipeline. http://www.essential-trading.co.uk http://sumawholesale.com That's food. Put savings into transparent ethical organisations, like Triodos, and current accounts with places like co-op bank or nationwide. Then there are plenty of green(er) energy providers. That's all of the day to day essentials covered . And, sure, sometimes we're stuck picking between a douche and a turd sandwich (south park terminology), but we can still do our best to do the research and find out that the douche, though getting their materials from third world countries, has labour/wage laws/policy in place, in line with the laws of that country and/or international labour laws. You can always find a company that is actively MORE ethical than another and then support that company/product. You can ALWAYS try and do your best.
  11. Nature = Good

    Yeah, I wasn't implying that EVERYONE grow ALL their own food . There wouldn't be the available time to become experts, society would break down. Not to mention that many people just aren't able. But, when you look at the problems of the west = "not enough exercise, too much pollution, wasting food." it seems a no brainer to get rid of gyms that use up energy/resources themselves, and instead have people exercise in utilitarian/purposeful ways. Farming, cycling rather than driving, building, etc, etc. Maybe in the not too distant future some kind of "Farm Gym" or similar things will come into being . Tech is great for a lot of things. There's a lot of stuff that'd either be impossible or incredibly difficult without it, but what baffles me is when you get masses of perfectly able bodied people using powered devices that would work easily as well manually, not exercising, even in little ways. Things like electric can openers, driving when people could be cycling, escalators, etc. These people then use powered equipment in brightly lit gyms with techno pumping because unless they get some exercise they feel miserable (exercise = best anti-depressant). (this duh-doy is not at anyone, but a general, duh-doy at the world).
  12. Nature = Good

    In all cases, yes. Especially for animal farming. Terrible practices. Huge problem for the developed world = Too much excess, bad diet, no exercise, obesity, and its consequences. Pollution and all that comes with that. Huge problem for the poorest countries = Stark lack of resources, starvation, dehydration, malnutrition. Pollution and all that comes with that. Horribly ironic. If we got people back to the fields for their own food here in comfortable-developed-land country, that might = exercise (tackling pretty much ALL chronic AND acute physical and mental health issues); less pollution in the air we breathe, the land on which we walk and the water we drink; people appreciating their food more, wasting less, and being able to give more to those without; getting hands and feet into the earth, grounding. I'm sure there's more but it seems like a win win on paper. Would gyms even need to exist when you're ploughing a field all day or lifting sacks of grain? Why are these things as they are? (rhetorical) It defies belief. It's just like the whole 'people driving to work everyday when it's only 9 miles away AND THEN going to a bloody gym after work every night to ride the exercise bikes' thing.
  13. Proving Breathless State to Medical Community

    Also, I don't know where this is from, I don't think I wrote it, and I don't know what you're referring to by it.
  14. Proving Breathless State to Medical Community

    Spotless, with love, no malice, but to me stating that someone's statement is "utterly naive" borders on insult. Would you agree? Ego is the only thing that can be insulted, so this is obviously ego speaking, but I do find this a tad insulting, and unnecessary. (Something applicable here that I should work on, but still: 2. Don't Take Anything Personally Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won't be the victim of needless suffering. ~ Don Miguel Ruiz) Additionally, I never actually said that "their there should not be secret teaching that is reserved for certain levels". I was stating that by and large I think that secrecy is a bad thing: And you sort of agree that a lot is already out there: Yes, of course, I agree; there's plenty out there. Just going by Non-Dual Self inquiry traditions there's enough, and none of that's secret. However if you're approaching it from another position then the secrets and gaps in between information muddies up the viewpoint to a certain extent for some approaches. If you're approaching it from an energetic approach then the secrecy can lead to problems, disparities, and create a situation where due to the secrecy between different traditions, disparities arise, underlying similarities are missed and people can end up not knowing where to go, what's legitimate. If information is open then you can verify a practice/school by going on information of what are agreed upon to be the proper approaches. I personally wasn't talking about the magic side of things, so in THIS particular area I cannot comment, because I have not explored it, and have not professed to. But still, in that case, and in all cases, there's already so much out there now that having little bits/gaps of secrecy seems to be a potential source of problems, you know? It's like having a driving manual being released, having loads of driving manuals released, but loads of them missing important information like how to slam on the brakes (and it was John Dalberg-Acton who said it, and I don't think he was an idiot, it's a brilliant quote ; I used it in a piece of writing I was doing the other month). I am primarily referring to spiritual practices re: secrecy (which I think was inferred, but I didn't state so, so fair enough). Energy work and meditation. I cannot comment on magic, but, I think the point remains: