Michael Sternbach

On 18.9.2023 at 7:53 PM, Bhathen said:

 

I think I'm just bad at dealing with circumstances, ..just remaining silent most of the time.

Here's the real issue. Better focus on learning how to express and assert yourself, than on anger "detox".

On 18.9.2023 at 7:53 PM, Bhathen said:

Nevertheless it's been a period of learning to be more accepting but much more miles to go.

There's a time for acceptance, and there's a time for holding your own.

On 18.9.2023 at 7:53 PM, Bhathen said:

Thank you. It's been too much turbulent to go to that inner space called 'home', but slowly been able to find that sense of peace again.

That's good to hear.

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

and the mods could give their 2 cents on the matter since they might or would be the ones involved in decisions along these lines.

Well, it would mean quite a lot of extra work for the mods. Members would have to be manually checked for the last time they posted something.

And Sean would have to weigh in too, I think.

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

  back to ya Michael, 20 all 

Old3Bob, I didn't understand your "quotation" here, it only contained something I never wrote.

And here you adressed me after you "quoted" yourself in an empty box?!

🤔

Not every part of the board can be accessed without subscription. This is probably one of the reasons why some people join without chiming in.

I am here to share my knowledge and my views. And I appreciate everyone who cares to listen, or who wishes to follow the interesting discussions we are often having. It goes without saying that anyone is welcome to contribute. But if they choose to just read and reflect on what is being presented by themself, that's cool with me. I would not like to see anyone being chastised for their "laziness."

Heck, I am far too much of a Daoist, and indeed a (space) punk, to support rules that aren't strictly necessary! And that's the spirit I wish for this forum to keep expressing.

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

The word "lurk" sounds a bit sinister, as if people who choose to keep their opinions to themselves are climbing on ladders to peer into their neighbor's bedrooms.  But wait, isn't that ridiculous?  There's nothing wrong -- and often a lot right -- with staying quiet.  Lurkers of the World Unite.  You are bothering nobody.  Share when and if you feel inspired.

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

Well what does that mean Silent Thunder?  Do you know of any viable groups besides on websites where some members never have to contribute a thing and just float around the group?

It's a common phenomenon on Internet forums.

TDB is a comparatively big one. And the bigger the forum, the more passive members you can expect.

Direct contributors are always just the tip of the ice berg. But that doesn't mean that the part that remains below the surface has no function.

Hatsune Miku--the world's first and cutest holographic vocaloid--singing about exorcism, Zen, and Buddhist cosmology.

(English subtitles are available.)

On 14.9.2023 at 4:25 PM, Daniel said:

 

I distiguish between 'zero' the number and 'null' the concept.  when people speak about 'zero' philosophically, it seems that they are actually talking about 'null' not 'zero', but the two get conflated.  'zero' in my opinion is an object, 'null' is an action.  'null' is something that is happening.  

 

Also, when I consider infinity, it's +/- infinity ( ±∞ ).  I include the negations (was, wasn't, is, isn't, will-be, won't, could-be).Technically, in mathematics, ∞ = ±∞. The ± is implied in the symbolism.  This puts 0, if it were to be included in ∞ in the center, not at the extreme.  It lives in the center of the number-line, doing nothing, contributing nothing, passive.  Absolutley meaningless and without purpose. 

Instead of placing 0 on the one-dimensional number-line, try setting it at the centre of a series of concentric circles or of a spiral carrying either all positive integers or all negative integers. This should help you visualise all numbers emanating from the central zero to infinity in the first case, and converging towards it from infinity in the second case.

This kind of model shows that, in either case, 0 and infinity can indeed be seen as two opposite poles.

Quote

But!  That is not what people are speaking about when 'zero', 'emptiness' 'nothingness' is discussed philosophically.  The 'zero' that is being contemplated and considered is active.  a resource, pool of nothingness, so to speak.  like a great heavenly body of water, the 'firmament' for lack of better word.  it's not a boring numeric 'zero' living in the middle of the number line.

To me, numbers as understood in the numeric system are anything but boring, but come with all the archetypal attributes that numerology ascribes to them. In other words, those attributes translate directly to their behaviour as mathematical objects.

I do believe that this kind of understanding is evident not least (LOL) in the way "shunya" means zero, whereas "shunyata" means "void" in the philosophical sense in ancient Sanskrit texts. 

You said yourself that "mathematics is philosophy" in another thread. I agree with that--these two fields of knowledge are, well, let's say, non-dual. 😁

Quote

regarding being disconnected, I prefer the word disjointed, never coinciding.  'null' is the action of removal, like subtraction, like vaccuum.  the operation, not the operator.  it's energetic.

 

Here's a diagram of how I envision 'null' which is often spoken of as 'zero', a source for manifestation.  But I'm trying to illutrate that it's active.  Energetic.  The green arrows are "nullifying".  It just keeps nullifying, forever and ever and always.

 

Hmm. What kind of numbers does each of these two sets contain? Do they nullify each other?

On 14.9.2023 at 11:35 PM, Nungali said:

 

It can work fine , at the right time, if it is not an initial attack, as performed in training .  Of course there are exceptions to everything, I have even got my old 'instructor' with it  *  ..... but he was hopeless and understood little .

 

* come lumbering in with the sword above my head , ready to cut down and project a strong mental message ; ' I'm gonna pretend to cut down on his head but really thats a feint , I am going to do something really nasty and sneaky '  ... you could see the 'fidget' in his eyes .... just walked in rather slowly and  chop ... you're dead . He didnt really know what happened .

 

he did 'feel the force'  ...  its just that I   cheated     

Yeah, as I mentioned myself, the downward sword strike can be an effective move if set up properly, or as part of a combination from which it would flow naturally. 

We are doing this kind of thing all the time in kenpo: Move our arms in an unceasing series of parries and strikes where one technique leads to the next without any wasted motion. So we get to use all kinds of different trajectories and hand formations to connect to a variety of sensitive targets all over the body. And this principle is also applied to how we use our legs.

(And yes, Filipino and Indonesian styles follow similar principles.)

This is a far cry from the stop-and-go kind of action (involving mostly just straight punches, backfists, front and roundhouse kicks) typically seen in sport karate!

However, it is quite in line with original Okinawan karate styles (that are sometimes called kempo as well, only the transcription to Western letters is slightly different--'m' in lieu of 'n').

The Hawaiian kenpo styles are actually linked to Choki Motobu, a renowned street fighter and advocate of karate as a combat art. He was a direct rival of Funakoshi; it doesn't take too much imagination to understand why the two masters didn't get on with each other too well! 😆

I actually believe that, while Okinawan karate was exported to the Japanese mainland to become a sport, via James Mitose it transgressed to Hawaii, retaining its martial essence. Surely that's a simplification, but an essential insight nonetheless in my view.

Quote

We should put on a seminar  together     

Great idea, I like it! 🙂 Australia isn't exactly just around the corner from where I am located, but perhaps we could teach this as a webinar via a Zoom session together? 🤔

On 16.9.2023 at 11:19 AM, old3bob said:

 

if someone is born in a pure land it is still a birth, and although a very high birth the Tibetan Wheel of Life points out to me that even the celestial realms (or god realms) are not free from birth and thus death which granted may take place after an exceeding long time and then another incarnation would be due.

While that is in accordance with a widely held belief especially in the Tibetan tradition, there are Buddhist teachers that have a more complex--or holistic vision--of the Pure lands. Quoting Wikipedia:

In Chinese Buddhism, the pure land was commonly seen as a transcendent realm beyond the three realms (the desire realm, form realm and formless realm) into which one can be reborn after death.[59] This view of the pure land as a place was defended by masters of Pure Land Buddhism like Shandao. However, another interpretation of a pure land is that it is non-dual with our world. The Vimalakīrti Sutra was widely cited by exponents of this non-dual view of the pure land, often called "mind-only" pure land (wéixīn jìngtǔ 唯心淨土). This was most commonly defended by masters of the Chan / Zen school.[60] In the Platform Sutra for example, Huineng states that only the deluded hope to be born in a faraway land in the west, while the wise who know their nature is empty seek the Pure Land by purifying their minds.[61] These two views of the pure land led to many debates in Chinese Buddhism.[62]

In a similar fashion, according to the Huayan school patriarch Fazang, the ultimate view of the Buddha's Pure Land (derived from the Avatamsaka sutra) is that it is interfused with all worlds in the multiverse and indeed with all phenomena (dharmas).[63] This view of the Buddha's pure land is inconceivable and all pervasive. Since for Fazang, the entire Dharma realm is visible within each particle in the universe, the Pure Land is therefore contained in every phenomena and is non-dual with our world.[63]

Later Chinese thinkers similarly attempted to synthesize the two ideas. Yúnqī Zhūhóng (1535–1615) saw the pure land as an actual place which is a useful upaya (skill means) created by the Buddha. Once beings reach this realm, they realize that it is just mind. Real sages can see that both ideas are interconnected and thus can affirm both without any conflict.[64]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_land

Quote

Btw, your mention of particular places radiating joy equates to me of the development of a matrix for it manifest in...a development that Steve and I are apparently in disagreement about.

Sounds awesome! Care to tell me more about it?

9 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

Yes, the only spirit in the TTC would be Tao. Tao was well defined in Chapter one. Tao is sometimes visible(有) and at other times is invisible(無).

Dao is equivalent to the World Spirit in Western natural philosophy. 

@DanielPlease note that CCC (see my previous post) also highlights the curious coincidence of infinity with zero which we recently talked about.

We're not done yet with that discussion... More spiritual smoothie yet to follow as we try and smoothen things out! 😋

Hi Bathan,

I feel you. I have been struggling with anger issues myself lately.

The first step is not to deny or suppress these feelings. They're a natural reaction, in particular, when we feel at the mercy of circumstances that we can't control.

It's important to identify the roots of your anger. Where does it originate? Once you have identified the cause of those feelings, see what can be done about it--even if that requires taking baby steps.

True, not all circumstances can be changed right off the bat. But the question is always how we deal with them. At the very least, they provide us with an opportunity to grow in our patience, compassion, and wisdom!

Additionally, I can recommend the following simple exercise to you:

Sit quietly, breathe calmly and deeply, and find that place of tranquility inside you. Then, when the going gets tough, take a moment to remember that sense of peace you experienced. Once you're back in that zone, it will be so much easier to do whatever needs to be done.

This sense... It is the awareness of your inner self -- your true indomitable Spirit that will forever prevail!

Best wishes for your journey,

Michael 

16 hours ago, old3bob said:

eternity of all time and space can't be of a line that starts, extends and then ends somewhere, or in thinking that from here on out we have eternity.  So to me its pretty safe to say that only cycles are eternal...the cosmic cycle for the physical universe and all its variations of energy is said to be around 14+ billion earth years before it returns (to a singularity) and then starts all over again with a big bang - not sure if or how that might apply to generally unknown realms? 

Well, most cosmologists believe that the universe is roughly 14 billion years old today.  If the model you refer to actually turns out to be the correct one, one full cycle of expansion and contraction takes considerably longer than that, though (thanks God!).

However, while there is no universal agreement in cosmology (LOL), the idea that the current expansive phase will be followed by a contractive phase--ending, at least momentarily, in a so called Big Crunch--lost much popularity in more recent times: not only is there not the slightest indication of the expansion ever coming to a halt, on the contrary, it was found to be constantly accelerating. The reason for this is elusive, so the cosmologists wisely decided to attribute it to something they call Dark Energy.

Now since we are not entirely sure how Dark Energy relates to equally mysterious Dark Matter, the last word on the matter may not have been spoken yet, but at the moment, it really seems like the universe (or whatever may be left of it in many billion years) is bound to expand in all eternity.

Is there a way that the cyclic concept could be saved? Astonishingly, there is!

For not long ago (well, at least in cosmic terms), Sir Roger Penrose (whose grasp of cosmic matters is so breathtakingly impressive that he needed to be knighted) came up with the idea that, although expansion indeed continues unlimitedly, once that all black holes would have evaporated, and all matter would have returned to the state of pure energy, something weird happens: space and time stretch out to infinity and eternity, respectively!

Another way of expressing this is that, with all Swiss watchmakers and all other matter reverted to energy, there's simply no way of telling what bloody time it is, or (for that matter) to measure any distances. So you might as well say that our light-filled universe became both timeless and spaceless now. Hush! The mind of God!

Paradoxically, this state of infinite expansion coincides with a state of infinite contraction by what may seem to be a mere mathematical trick, but actually has a profound meaning. 😮

Nope, there's no contractive phase ('Big Crunch') occurring in Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology!!! Yes I know, that's a tough one to wrap your head around--trust me, I feel you! Let me tell you that even a costly documentary got that wrong as I sadly had to inform its makers in a comment posted just hours after its release. 🤭

So at one (eternal) moment you have infinite expansion, and at the "next" another singularity--nothing in between! Just BANG! And Brahman's game starts all over again...

Quote

Anyway some want to be around as a particular someone or particular immortal for "all eternity" yet even eternity isn't around for all eternity except in cycles.  So that makes me wonder about the goals of some "immortals" that we hear of who at best can only exist in a period of a cosmic cycle before it ends and then begins all over again, thus only the Great Tao-remains as the source of cycles - while particular beings and worlds have to "return".  And of course there are many takes on this subject and many of them don't agree...

 

that which was said above is different from an "eternal moment" which is beyond the time and space limits of a cosmic cycle or of a lesser cycle of time and space.

 

50 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

which is dualistic.  if it is non-dual, truly non-dual, then the word "with" has no meaning.

Non-dual isn't the same as identical. The spiritual world is neither identical with the physical world, nor is it truly separate from the latter. If I find a better word than 'non-dual' for defining their relationship, I will let you know.

On 16.9.2023 at 3:41 PM, galen_burnett said:

Note: the part I officially quoted has nothing to do with my reply here other than referencing the comment of yours that I am here replying to—I should rather have officially quoted the part that I have italicised just below instead… 

 

“But it goes without saying that some of the other Buddhist schools are more talkative in this regard, and they also take different stands on the nature of enlightenment and ultimate reality.”

 

Do you yourself have a take on “ultimate reality”?

Yes. It has to do with multidimensional space and time, and what C.G. Jung called "psychoid space."

On 16.9.2023 at 3:41 PM, galen_burnett said:

If so, is “ultimate” reality more valid than the “ordinary” or “non-ultimate” reality?

No. It is effectively non-dual with the world of our daily experience. 

On 16.9.2023 at 3:41 PM, galen_burnett said:

Have I got this right?: in this reply of yours to Stirling you are saying that indeed the notion of an attainable ‘heaven’ exists in Eastern philosophies—‘the pure land’; then you are saying that you are trying to work out for yourself what these philosophies mean by the Void, through comparisons with other philosophies like that of Plato, Socrates and Pythagoras, and, by extension from the Void, what is meant by the Non-Dual.

Basically yes. With its insistence on the phenomenal world being the result of interactions that are essentially devoid of any deeper reality, Buddhism seems to be at odds with the Platonist view of archetypal forms and determining principles existing on a level beyond the manifest universe. I don't believe that these views are actually irreconcilable with each other, thus I am searching for the philosophical "missing links."

Also, Buddhism and other Eastern systems offer a variety of powerful methodologies to directly experience the numinous--something that is somewhat (though not entirely) lacking in the Platonist and Hermetic traditions, which are more intellectually oriented, overall.

On 16.9.2023 at 10:53 AM, galen_burnett said:

If you accept the extra-terrestrial world-view as David Icke and the Ancient Aliens series have predominantly worked to develop, what reservations could you have to doubt or deny the extra-terrestrial nature of the world’s religious icons?

That's a rather broad sweep you're making there!

I love the Ancient Aliens series for the many weird observations and speculations it brings to attention. And I am quite familiar with David Icke, Alexander Collier, Tom Smith, Len Kasten, Erich von Däniken, and other proponents of "the extraterrestrial worldview," as you call it. They don't always agree with each other, but that's inconsequential to me. I don't take anyone's scheme at face value, but prefer to make my own critical reviews and distinctions.

There's a sad tendency among conspiracists to uncritically accept "the (anyone's) extraterrestrial worldview" in a neat package with Hollow-Earth theory, Hollow-Moon theory, Flat-Earth theory, the moon landings being fake, and/or Trump being the saviour of humanity from the Illuminati, and what-have-you. In fact, some seem to be more than ready to accept any claims at all, as long as they are sufficiently at odds with mainstream thinking! 🙄

I see no evidence for any of the known religious founders to be of extraterrestrial origin. I find much wisdom and truth in the words of Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, Laotzu, and others--they are representatives of human spiritual ingenuity to me. True, a number of religions have been misrepresented and used for political reasons, but this is generally not their founders' fault.

On our expeditions into unfamiliar lands, we need to tread carefully. There's so much we don't know out there!

Drawing from ancient mythology, modern mythology (the category which the aforesaid authors fall into), whistleblower reports, occult teachings, and not least my own dream/astral travel experiences, I develop my own take on humanity's past, present, and potential future involvement with extraterrestrial civilisations in my upcoming book trilogy Spacepunk. While nothing in it is implausible in my view, I am presenting it as science fiction, and for good reasons--and if any reader would see it as nothing more than an allegorical narrative, that's fine with me! 🙂

On 15.9.2023 at 9:40 PM, liminal_luke said:

 

Agreed.

 

What language arguably can't do is define reality with precision and certainty; we can't use words like mathematical symbols and prove this or that about the Dao.  But words can suggest and imply so much more than their denotative meaning alone.  Think metaphor, think rhythm, think syntactic symbolism.  Language as art.  Words do not do their work alone but are always mediated through the consciousness of the reader.  The skilled writer can dance with the skilled reader, bringing forth a unique experience in which the distant echo of the ineffable is heard.  

Beautiful! 👏

On 15.9.2023 at 11:29 AM, galen_burnett said:

No, such a comprehension is not possible; not that you were asking me, but I’ve stated my opinion on this and my reasoning behind it, I think, more than once elsewhere in the thread. Not even ‘God’ is capable of such a comprehension, as he himself would also be a finite being—I deduce this from the premiss that being conscious necessitates having a Form and therefore also limits.

Not in my view. God (Brahman, Dao) is Infinity and Eternity themselves.

On 14.9.2023 at 6:18 PM, Mark Foote said:

 

You find Gautama's teaching pure and simple?

I mean, insofar many tomes of teachings have been added by the various Buddhist schools later.

On 14.9.2023 at 6:18 PM, Mark Foote said:

Something, something, something:

 

Gautama said:
 

And I… at the close of (instructional discourse), steady, calm, make one-pointed and concentrate my mind subjectively in that first characteristic of concentration in which I ever constantly abide.
 

(MN I 249, Pali Text Society vol I p 303)

 

Gautama’s statement implies that he did not experience “that first characteristic of concentration” when he spoke.

“That first characteristic of concentration” is “one-pointedness of mind”, as here in Gautama’s description of “right concentration”:
 

“And what… is the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations, with the accompaniments?  It is right view, right purpose, right speech, right action, right mode of livelihood, right endeavor, right mindfulness.  Whatever one-pointedness of mind is accompanied by these seven components , this… is called the (noble) right concentration with the causal associations and the accompaniments.”
 

(MN III 71, Pali Text Society vol III p 114; similar at SN V 17; “noble” substituted for Ariyan)

 

Even though giving “instructional discourse” meant the loss of “that first characteristic of concentration”, Gautama went ahead and taught, and he expected the monks in his order to do the same. He severely chastised a group of monks who had taken a vow of silence for their rainy-season retreat, and made a rule against the practice:
 

“Monks, an observance of members of other sects, the practice of silence, should not be observed. Whoever should observe it, there is an offence of wrong-doing.”
 

(2nd book of the Theravadin Vinaya, Khandhaka 4.1.13)

 

 

(Mindfulness of Death)

 

 

Soto Zen is big on silence, at retreats.

 

Here's the part where I see Soto Zen as in accord with Gautama's teachings:

 

Although we accept Buddha’s teaching, our practice is not based on any teaching. Our practice is based on our original nature—buddha-nature. Even if Buddha did not appear in this world, we all have [laughs] nature. And we should start our practice because of our true nature which Buddha found.

(Shunryu Suzuki, 68-07-21 lecture, http://www.shunryusuzuki.com/suzuki/transcripts-pdf/LE/68-07-21-LE.htm)

I simply noticed that you are referring a lot to the Pali canon--arguably the most original Buddhist texts. And since, on the other hand, you are a Soto Zen practitioner (a tradition known for its frugality), I wondered if you see the Pali canon as the essential text.

On 13.9.2023 at 6:30 PM, galen_burnett said:

Lol indeed! it must be unpleasant for them to always be on guard for attachments, like superstitious medieval house-wives adorning their homes with anti-demon charms, sort-of… 

Never Say Never Again.

9 hours ago, steve said:

 

Buddhism actually does say that everything is perfect in a very explicit way - the path of dzogchen.

The word literally means great perfection, referring to the fundamental, primordially pure, unfabricated state of being - our inherent essence. There are three major paths in Mahayana Buddhism and this is one. The other two paths and the Hinayana don't necessarily accept or agree with the dzogchen view but it is an important part of Bön and Buddhism, generally referred to as the highest or most precise, and most elusive, view. 

Zen says the very same thing. As do at least those Pure Land schools that maintain that the 'pure land' is non-dual with the world of our ordinary experience. 

That kind of view might help explain why Japanese Buddhist temples are frequently such cheerful places -- regardless of Shakyamuni's "life is suffering" statement. They radiate some kind of existential joy; something, by contrast, I never felt in a western church (although some of the latter are energetically interesting too).

On 14.9.2023 at 7:19 PM, Mark Foote said:

My understanding is that jiu-jitsu was the original grappling art.  Certainly judo was drawn from jiu-jitsu, but I think Aikido as well.  

That depends on your definition of 'original'. Many of the ju-jitsu, aiki-jitsu/daito-ryu, and Okinawan karate's tuite techniques were actually drawn from Chinese chin'na -- the grappling part of various kung fu styles.

It goes without saying that the moves were adapted to fit into the respective styles. Thus, it is quite conceivable that part of a given repertoire was modified or specifically selected to align with the samurai's armed techniques.

Regardless... At the time I was training aikido in Kyoto -- when I still knew much less about martial arts history than I do today --, I once happened to watch a Hongkong movie featuring a skillful chin'na practitioner. And I was really surprised to see him do a number of  things that were so similar to what I was learning in the dojo!

And that was not simply because "people everywhere have four limbs, and there are only so many ways that the human body can move"!

To illustrate, in a certain Thai grappling art, I found plenty of unique techniques that I hadn't seen in any of the quite numerous systems that (for research purposes) I looked into.

Quote

God, Mark Hammel is bad!  At least Driver is making no attempt.  

Yeah... Not all the fight scenes in the Star Wars movies are actually that hot.

Quote

I"ve been pleasantly surprised at Rosario Dawson's fight scenes, as Ashoka Tano in Star Wars.  At least she has basic stances!

 

Yep! I like her too.

 

On 14.9.2023 at 7:05 PM, Mark Foote said:

My favorite footage of Ueshiba showed him spinning a staff.  I know they practice staff moves in Aikido, but I've never seen anyone just spin a staff and move the way Ueshiba did.  Haven't been able to find the video online.

Yes, the staff (both short and long version) is the only other weapon besides the sword that is regularly employed in aikido practice. 

Not sure if what you saw is included in this compilation, but anyway, it may be worth watching.