Michael Sternbach

That podcast was interesting. Thanks for sharing!

It brought back the good old days when I was practising zazen together with a zen monk here in Switzerland, and later at the Sosenji temple in Kyoto. I would generally prefer the full lotus posture, and while sitting in it for 45 minutes wasn't such a big deal, during a double session -- or a sesshin with several sessions in one day -- I surely did have my difficult moments.

For that matter, I remember how, on one occasion, sitting right next to the priest in the temple's meditation hall mysteriously made the two-hour session so much easier to endure.

Your suggestion to bring the centre of gravity slightly forward immediately brought to mind what I had learnt from Taiji practice (even long before you mentioned the latter yourself). There, letting the pelvis roll forward is said to align the vertebrae and straighten the spine, which normally has kind of an 'S' shape. Since I recently started thinking of getting my zafu and my zabuton out of the closet again anyway, I suppose I will soon have an opportunity to mess with that concept! 😃

Regarding the question whether one's focus ought to constantly remain on the kikai tanden, I recall a passage in Kapleau's The Three Pillars of Zen, where a practitioner finding his attention wandering to the Third Eye was advised to go along with that kind of spontaneous 'deviation'.

And finally, I definitely agree that it's a good idea to look at zazen practice (and other meditation techniques) from a modern scientific perspective. 

Hi Nuralshamal,

For physically oriented qigong exercises, I'd look especially into yijin jing and xi sui jing. The shaolin monks have been using them for many centuries to improve their skills, and a lot of other martial artists find them highly effective too.

Not least, these two sets of exercises are well known for their immune strengthening and general healing effects.

Cheers

Michael 

22 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

But why?  Why delete them?  

Personally, I find it quite frustrating to come across an interesting thread in which half of the posts have been deleted. 😫

Hi Cobie,

Here's my take on this chapter:

The movement of the Dao

By contraries proceeds;

Things constantly move and evolve through polarities -- a day is succeeded by a night; waves have their crests and troughs; also: thesis/anti-thesis/synthesis.

And weakness marks the course

Of Dao's mighty deeds.

A reference to the water-like nature of the Dao which Laotzu talks about every so often.

All things under heaven sprang from It as existing (and named);

that existence sprang from It as non-existent (and not named).

From non-existence or Dao as wu-chi -- a condition of pure potential about which little can be said, since it encompasses nothing and yet everything -- sprang existence or Dao as tai-chi. In turn, in the field spanned by tai-chi's complementary forces, all things are being created 

4 hours ago, Cobie said:

Truth

be told

8 hours ago, Amituofo said:

After meditation, qigong, or taichi, acupuncture, moxibustion, or exercise (any focused energy/work or qi stimulation)  do we need to wait before urinating, defecating, washing hands/touching water, drinking, eating and perhaps doing stimulating things etc.?

If this is the case, when exactly should we be careful not to do these things like touching or drinking water (I just guessed the above). 

And how long do we need to wait for approximately?

At the very least, I heard one shouldn't drink cold water for 15 minutes or so at least after doing these activities because the skin pores are opened or the energy channels are stimulated.

Please forgive me for my confusion and perhaps silly question.
I also know people have different views on this topic here.

I would like to hear your insights, please.

Rather than following any rigid rules, I suggest simply watching how it affects you if you do this or that after one of these activities. 

On 25.8.2023 at 12:53 AM, Nungali said:

On 24.8.2023 at 9:34 PM, Michael Sternbach said:

 

So you are saying that we are labeling things based on convention, and thus attributing a 'reality' to them that they don't intrinsically have.

 

Yep !   have you seen what the Hebrew letters are supposed to represent ?   So .... no wonder !

 

 

I am familiar with the Kabbalah and therefore aware that the Hebrew letters represent objects and beings (as do the Egyptian hieroglyphs, the Chinese and Japanese characters, etc).

At the same time, the Hebrew letters represent numbers and archetypes -- which actually illustrates my statement that transient things are expressions of archetypal 'ideas'.

Quote

Quote

 

However, I think what actually happened was that we -- as a species -- found distinct objects and beings in our environment and started giving them names for easy reference.

 

I was listening to one of the teachers in an Aboriginal language  she said  : " Oh no, I am not an expert, I am still learning  , I go to  my grandfather still for lessons ; he picked me up the other day  .... I was  saying  ...... "   (  that language's name for a certain bird .... I cant remember the word  or the bird  .....   but  )  " and he said , no, thats not the correct pronunciation .... it doesnt even sound like that bird's call . "    Then they  went through a list of  animal words whose names related to the sound they make .   ( a bit like  ' no, it isnt 'kookaburra'  it should be  ' kookookakar '   ( with the oo part pronounced like a kookaburra does  it )

A nice example for words being derived from the things they are intended to designate -- rather than the reverse, as some Buddhists suggest.

Quote

Quote

My dogs understand very well what a bone is and what its specific attributes are without knowing what it's called.

 

?   Eh ?  ... Their ears dont prick up , tail wag and lips licked when you say  ;  " Bone ? "    .  I am sure the possum that  sleeps above my bed knows what " Banana ? "  means .

They do react to certain words that way, however, 'bone' isn't part of their vocabulary. But they have a clear concept of it regardless. 

Ultimately, seeing is believing... 😉

Quote

Quote

That said, I certainly don't deny that our convention based concepts tend to structure and limit our perception -- they do so to a large extent --, but to infer from this that the objects of our perception have no intrinsic reality seems to be quite a stretch.

 

Not until they are named  

.... ( as in the Jewish/Christian scripture )  ... and to an extent in some  old indigenous cultures  

 

And I would still like to know who first expressly came up with this idea, and when. If anyone here knows, I would appreciate a hint.

 

 

Whoever wrote  "   and the Lord said ; let there be light  ? 

 

( Oh look ....   the quote breaker is working again ! )

Right, the Logos... Which also has to do with the ability to measure things, besides naming them. 

The question is how we are to interpret the ancient scriptures, though. If I had forgotten my name and found myself in a place where nobody knows me, would I cease to exist?

Quote

 

Quote

 

The melted metal of our hammer indeed has the potential to become a lot of different things, as long as it's in the formless state.

 

But a potential hammer won't help you sticking actual nails into the wall -- trust me, you'll need an actual hammer for the job.

 

' Philosophy is fine ... until its time to hang a picture '

( Sun-poo  Sutra 23 )

 

The Platonist philosophy I referred to is well aware of the difference between potential and actuality, and looks at them as a polarity. Whereas the Buddhist view you represent seems to only acknowledge 'the sea of potential' as reality and claim that the hammer, the nails, and the wall don't actually exist.

 

Nor does a punch in the nose  ..... until you get one .   

Exactly, and at that moment, it won't matter a bit if you call it a cross, a gyaku-tsuki, or whatnot -- or if you even know what hit you (in fact, the worst hits are those that you didn't see coming).

Nor will it help to tell yourself that you were hit by a mere convention, LOL.

Quote

Quote

 

That's a non-sequitur. To any thougthful individual, it will be rather obvious that little in the manifest world is permanent -- perhaps not even the manifest world itself.

On 24.8.2023 at 11:23 PM, Daniel said:

 

Classic.

 

 

This is the point.

 

I assert that you are far more than than what is on the surface.  That you have an essence, which is eternal, timeless, absolutely unique.  You bring something to reality which absolutely cannot be brought by anyone or anything else.  And it's not just you, it's everyone and everything that exists.  Because of this, I greatly value the opportunity to interact with you, and them, and everything.  To be in your presence, to listen to your words, to share your ideas when you choose to share them.  To visit the realm-of-luke whn I am invited.  But not just you.  Everything is like this for me.

 

When I am able to hold this idea and maintain it, it's an ongoing blissful state, and it's close, oh.  it's so close, it's like th air i breath every second of every day.  I don't need to do anything, its just happening.  When Ajay asked about my experience, I went to the store and reached out with my peripheral vision, and just basked in the blissful tempo of life and all it has to offer.  That way I could write about it.

 

Someone comes along and says, "nah... you're nothing, they're nothing, your family is meaningless, you're meaningless.  you have no soul, they have no souls.  I'm enlightened and my bliss experience requires the denying you your identity."  That's a bit of a buzz kill.

Yes, that's exactly the issue I have with the Buddhist mindset myself. It doesn't seem to recognize the glorious and eternally valid uniqueness of the individual as one in a myriad of foci the Universe creates to contemplate its own existence. 

BTW, back in the day, I was taught the illusionary nature of individual existence in a lecture in Kyoto's Sosenji temple (where I was occasionally practising zazen at the time) and attempted to further discuss the issue, however, the monk in charge decided to quickly move on to other attributes of Nothing, LOL.

On 24.8.2023 at 11:23 PM, Daniel said:

Generally, I would avoid discussing it with people whom I know, for certain, are adherents to this sort of mindset.  But here we are on a public forum, and a kindred spirit pops-in to say, "Hey, have you noticed that this so-called-enlightenment is kind of a shell-game.  it's not what it appears to be on the surface?"  So, I'm here supporting that person, because, if they are like me, then these ideas of sunyata as the only-way are kind of distracting.  And knowing they have friends who relate and understand out there can cut down on the noise.

 

3 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

The tenets of any given spiritual path can be debated endlessly, obviously.  At a certain point however (ten pages in, perhaps) I start asking myself what's the point.  For some the debate may be intellectually stimulating and fun -- fair enough.  But personally I'm more interested in how people's lives change when they take up this or that spiritual practice.  Do people become happier, kinder, better able to navigate the everyday challenges of life?  If so, my interest is piqued.  For me, the ultimate validity of dependent origination or whatever is secondary.  YMMV

Words of wisdom, Luke!

How we conceptualize our chosen path can, however, to some degree define the experiences that we are open to or attract. And the concepts we make can sometimes turn out to be restrictions getting in the way of the actual experience. 

But I can sit down and do zazen without agonizing over hammers and screwdrivers, nails and screws -- thanks Heavens.

4 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

It's a handheld computer.

 

Here's a very strange, kind of fun, movie about the multi-purpose human.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Army_Man  Have you seen it?  It looks like it might be on Hulu.  But I don't have that service, so I cannot confirm.

I don't have Hulu either, but I will look out for that movie.

Thanks.

8 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

 

 This shows clearly that you have not done your scholarly due diligence or homework, and have faulty premises or weak foundations for your arguments, and this is why you are unable to perceive, and more importantly  attain the joy of the Buddha nature present within yourself. 

 

Buddha in the Kesamutti Sutta have emphasized independent investigation and knowing for oneself, instead of depending upon the words of others...

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesamutti_Sutta

 

The Kesamutti Sutta states :

 

He emphasizes independent investigation and inquiry in the Ghanavyuha sutra as well.

 

'O monks and wise men, just as a goldsmith would test his gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it, so must you examine my words and accept them, not merely out of reverence for me.' ~ Buddha ( ghanavyuha sutra )(Sutra of Dense Array)
 

He is not a salesman promising heaven in return for blind faith in him or his teachings.  Independent and critical examination of his teachings and practices is also part of the Buddhist doctrine, so that faith if developed, will be based on solid experiences of one's own, and not just others testimony. 

Yes, that's the theory, and it's indeed a very commendable position.

In practice, though, Buddhists tend to cling to their teacher/master's words as much as the followers of any other religion do. IME.

10 hours ago, C T said:

 

Hammer, nail, screwdriver... know them as mere labels. Labels do not have intrinsic reality. 

So you are saying that we are labeling things based on convention, and thus attributing a 'reality' to them that they don't intrinsically have.

However, I think what actually happened was that we -- as a species -- found distinct objects and beings in our environment and started giving them names for easy reference.

My dogs understand very well what a bone is and what its specific attributes are without knowing what it's called.

That said, I certainly don't deny that our convention based concepts tend to structure and limit our perception -- they do so to a large extent --, but to infer from this that the objects of our perception have no intrinsic reality seems to be quite a stretch.

And I would still like to know who first expressly came up with this idea, and when. If anyone here knows, I would appreciate a hint.

Quote

A melted substance is still a substance. While it may have altered its form, its potential remains valid and cannot be said to be formless. The -ness aspect is always present, regardless of what it transforms out of or in to. 

The melted metal of our hammer indeed has the potential to become a lot of different things, as long as it's in the formless state.

But a potential hammer won't help you sticking actual nails into the wall -- trust me, you'll need an actual hammer for the job.

The Platonist philosophy I referred to is well aware of the difference between potential and actuality, and looks at them as a polarity. Whereas the Buddhist view you represent seems to only acknowledge 'the sea of potential' as reality and claim that the hammer, the nails, and the wall don't actually exist.

Quote

The thusness of things makes allowance for expansive non-dual insights to arise. This insight is a prerequisite to gnow beyond fabrications of subject/object separations. Without it, we are stuck within a paradigm where superficial appearances are regarded as permanent and unchanging, which in effect is a type of delusion because the assumption is that we bums at least acknowledge the truth of change permeating all of existence. 

That's a non-sequitur. To any thougthful individual, it will be rather obvious that little in the manifest world is permanent -- perhaps not even the manifest world itself.

Hi CT,

55 minutes ago, C T said:

 

No probs. I didn't find your objections meaningful either. 

 

A reiteration: the label 'hammer' is a conventional designate. As are all labels for the myriad things in existence. It's impossible to argue about a thing's existence/non existence and logical positions based on labels alone. 

That's a typical Buddhist position which I've always had an issue with -- despite my involvement with Zen. I wonder, when was it first brought up in the old texts? Can it be supposed to be one of Gautama's original teachings?

It seems to be at odds with my Platonist views.

According to Platonism, tangible things are the concrete manifestations of 'ideas' that exist in the divine mind. It is these 'ideas' that are endowing the ten-thousand things with their shape and form.

Quote

A hammer contains numerous non-hammer properties. A conglomeration process needs to happen; various other things needs to come together for a hammer to materialise. No magic involved. So a hammer is a hammer only by convention. On an absolute basis, it can only be said to have a certain 'hammer-ness' about it.

I would argue that in its 'hammer-ness', it actually manifests the archetype of the hammer.

Quote

Say it were to be melted and returned to its base property. This in no way negates its hammer-ness. 

But it would! You can't have a hammer without 'hammer-ness'.

No more 'hammer-ness' = no more hammer.

In the Platonist view, once it melted, it returned to the state of formless 'prime matter', and that's that.

Of course, you could take this basic matter and form it into a screwdriver. But then the result would be a screwdriver, and no longer a hammer, I'm afraid. One's for nails, the other one for screws. Same matter, but different form.

2 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Well.  I disagree.  In my faith-tradition these ideas are discussed and contemplated most often in the micro as "a word before it is spoken" or "an idea before it is expressed", and in the macro as "God before creation" and "how God creates".  Although, those last two are controversial.  These ideas can be applied to the example you brought, the hammer.  And I feel confident that the hammer has specific unique attributes which exist while in use, when it is in the toolbox ( in potentia ), lying on the floor as a door stop, as it exists as a concept or idea, or even as it exists in a fictitious reality where there is only one solitary hammer and literally nothing else.

 

For example, I have used rocks as hammers.  And while it seems that maybe this would confuse the attributes which define the hammer ( basically a non-deformable 'heavy' head attached to a rigid lever ), the hammer is produced when the rock is held firmly in the hand which is attached to the rigid lever which is my forearm.  The same tool is not produced if I firmly hold a sea-shell, for example.

 

 

I vote no.  It's always and forever a hammer.  Or, it could even take on more significance if it's my parent's hammer, or my grandparent's hammer, or maybe my grandparent's favorite hammer.  What if it's my child's very first hammer, and this was an early indicator that they had a natural talent for making and fixing, and they carried it everywhere, and gave it a name?  And then there's the story when the dog snatched it and hid it under the couch and we couldn't find it for a week?  We tried to buy a replacement hammer, same exact thing, same size, shape, color, handle... everything.  But of course... the child would not accept it.

 

Anyway... 

 

 

OK, well.   Sadly, I don't feel like I've made any progress.  This is where I was when I asked the question. 

 

Ignoring my preconceived notions about the hammer.  I'll put that down, put it away.  Poof.  Bye-bye.  There's two truths.  Conventional / unconventional.  Both are true.  Now, just as I put away my ideas about the hammer, if I "put away" the two truths, poof, bye-bye.  Those two truths are gone.  They're not true at all.  They don't even exist.  I've never heard of them.  Hammer?  what's that?  I've never heard of it.  I have no idea what that is.  I have no words to describe it.  Showing me a hammer produces zero reaction.  Showing me a snowflake produces zero reaction.  Putting the hammer on my tongue produces zero reaction.  Putting the snowflake on my tongue produces zero reaction.  Nothing produces a reaction.  There is no distinguishing difference between the hammer, a snowflake, you me.  And I am completely catatonic.

 

That's how I would apply this idea of "to go beyond" and to "put away" the two truths.  But, I feel like this is incorrect based on what others are telling me.  Yet, if I recall the scripture associated with Buddha's words, it seems consistent with what I have read. But I understand that these teachings have been expounded and developed for hundreds of years by various wise and accomplished individuals.

 

So... I'm kind of stuck on this concept.  But it's not too important.  I'm confident whatever I need to know and undertand will be learned and understood in due "time".  ( in quotes, because time is wonky )

 

But I enjoy learning, if you wish to share more, I will certainly appreciate it.  But, there is no pressure from me to do so.

 

I agree with you -- a hammer will be a hammer no matter what.

And yes, your forearm can become a hammer in conjunction with a rock, temporarily. (And if you are a martial artist, you may even be able to substitute your fist for the rock.)

I am no longer sure about phones, though. Since I am using my so-called phone also for reading, writing, sending and receiving text messages, painting, searching the Internet, playing video games, as a torch, etc. Using it actually as a phone has become rather the exception than the rule. And yet I am calling it "my phone".

This may indeed be a matter of convention.

(Let's not go into Swiss pocket knives for now.)

16 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

@Michael Sternbach “The man who has a dig-pitting unit will most likely have a mobile phone in his pocket.”

 

—Sun Tzu, Twitter Post, 2018.

Fascinating!

16 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

your comment on 22/08/23. “Alternatively, you can let the archaeologists of the far future excavate and build some outrageous theory about 21st century humans on you.” as an aside, are you implying that the findings of archaeological study in general are inaccurate? 

Good catch! On the one hand, I was alluding to an old polemic between Nungers and me regarding the existence of prehistoric civilisations (a theory that I support, BTW).

But...

16 hours ago, galen_burnett said:

[i meant ‘pit-digging’, not ‘dog-pitting’… or did i..?]

5 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

nah ... he is implying that I am an 'inaccurate human ' . 

 

I think I  better wear a gold plaque around my neck wen I get buried  ;   " Not normal ! "

This interpretation is valid as well! At any rate, you would be part of the underground.

But then, so are all Aussies as seen from the Northern hemisphere. 

Nuff said now. I don't wish to spoil the fun of the future exegetists deciphering all the intricacies of my multi layered post.

On 20.8.2023 at 10:01 PM, Mark Foote said:

 

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that are concerned with the limits of provability in formal axiomatic theories. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The theorems are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible.
 

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system.
 

The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

(Wikipedia, "Gödel's incompleteness theorems")

 

 

Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything, but after considering Gödel's Theorem, he concluded that one was not obtainable. "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind."

(Wikipedia, "Theory of Everything")

The Hawking quote is from a lecture he gave, that ends:

 

Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind. I'm now glad that our search for understanding will never come to an end, and that we will always have the challenge of new discovery. Without it, we would stagnate. Godel’s theorem ensured there would always be a job for mathematicians. I think M theory will do the same for physicists. I'm sure Dirac would have approved.

(Godel and the end of physics, 2002, Stephen Hawking Estate)

 

 

 

In logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true.


... According to Brouwer, a statement that an object exists having a given property means that, and is only proved, when a method is known which in principle at least will enable such an object to be found or constructed …
 

Hilbert naturally disagreed. "Pure existence proofs have been the most important landmarks in the historical development of our science," he maintained. (Reid p. 155)
 

Brouwer refused to accept the logical principle of the excluded middle.


... In his lecture in 1941 at Yale and the subsequent paper, Gödel proposed a solution: "that the negation of a universal proposition was to be understood as asserting the existence … of a counterexample" (Dawson, p. 157)


... The debate seemed to weaken: mathematicians, logicians and engineers continue to use the law of excluded middle (and double negation) in their daily work.

(Wikipedia, "Law of excluded middle")
 

 

Well, I don't claim to be a logician.  When I get to the predicate calculus, my mind boggles.

 

Talking about physics with its eternal quest for a TOE: History shows that every time "the last remaining questions" were about to be answered, a previously unknown new world opened up.

Dark matter, anyone? How about dark energy?

If the Divine is synonymous with the Infinite, it makes sense that we can forever approach it, but never reach it.

And there's also no need to hurry. Phew...

On 20.8.2023 at 7:20 PM, Apech said:

UNPOPULAR OPINION

 

No system, or method or religion will produce the results as advertised.

 

 

 

That's what I like about Zen -- it advertises nothing.

Emperor Wu asked the great teacher Bodhidharma,

“What is the first principle of the holy teaching?”
Bodhidharma said, “Vast emptiness, nothing holy.”
“Who are you, standing here in front of me?” asked the Emperor.
“I don’t know,” said Bodhidharma.
The Emperor didn’t understand.

9 hours ago, Neirong said:

That is a good point, and most internal and genuine cultivation experiences will sound like a fairy tale or cosmic fantasy to an uneducated non-initiated bystander.
 

And the further you advance in practice, the more bizarre the gap between normal people's reality and cultivators. I think the ability to see Qi with your own eyes and the ability to interact with the spirit world directly is like a waterboard between the world of mortals and the world of spiritual development.

it is not possible to explain those concepts in words, and not possible to pass through the wall without a guide or a teacher transmission. (And a lot of training)

I agree with you for the most part. However, even though guides and teachers are sometimes needed (and  can come in many forms), I never cease to be astonished how very close 'the other reality' is to the one we are generally familiar with -- if we just look in the right direction.

Do you know this nice little Zen story about Huineng?

When Hungren saw his death approaching he told his monks to compose a verse showing an intuitive understanding of his own inner nature. He who could do this would be given the "transmission" and receive the robe and bowl of office as Sixth Ancestor.

The favorite for the title was Shenxiu, who wrote:

Our body is the Bodhi-tree
And our mind a mirror bright.
Carefully we clean them hour by hour
And let no dust alight.

Marveling at this, the other monks decided it could not be bettered. But Hongren responded to the verse by telling Shenxiu: "This verse does not demonstrate that you have yet achieved true understanding of your original nature. You have reached the front gate, but you have not yet entered into full understanding. Prepare your mind more fully and when you are ready, submit another gatha." Shenxiu departed, but try as he might, he could not produce the second gatha.

As the story goes, Huineng, not knowing of Hongren's test, saw the verse on the wall, asked someone to it read out to him, and dictated his own poem to be written alongside it:

There is no Bodhi-tree
Nor stand of a mirror bright.
Since all is void
Where can the dust alight?

💡

12 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Whats that ?

It could be something as simple as a shuffle, or as advanced as an excavator if you have the funds.

12 hours ago, Nungali said:

I will be digging a pit  -  well its finished now - I won't be falling into it .... I gotta jump down into it .  excavate the edges  a bit to take a strip foundations, make the form work, mix and pour a concrete slab 

Make sure you get out of it prior to that. Alternatively, you can let the archaeologists of the far future excavate and build some outrageous theory about 21st century humans on you.

12 hours ago, Nungali said:

and then build the structure on top .

 

Its an 'outhouse' ... a 'dunny'   a 'back yard thunderbox' .

 

One woman , having trouble, the house owner (it isnt quiet finished yet ) and another , the would be renter . Both are women that are being abused by men and the system . The renter and her little girl more recently , so a bit fractured and seeking refuge , but the house is not ready yet . 

 

yeah , it was nice of those other people to give them 'support' ....  'love' ...... flowers ......

 

Guess its me though that gotta get in the pit and dig out a crap hole for them .

 

Old crappy Nungali .

Always someone's gotta do the dirty work. 🤷🏻‍♂️

3 hours ago, old3bob said:

" "Whoever digs a pit will fall into it"

"Whoever digs a pit needs a pit-digging unit." 😉

14 hours ago, Zoya said:

Is this a real or AI made illustration?

It's a character from the sci-fi universe I created and started illustrating with the assistance of various image AIs.

She's also artificial in the sense that she's one of the androids my story's protagonist invents in order to protect Earth from an impending alien invasion.

And to look good while doing so! 😃

12 hours ago, Pak_Satrio said:

That’s amazing! Please keep me updated, would like to check it out.

Sure thing! I will be happy to keep you and any other interested parties posted.

For that matter, please consider following my blog http://michaelsternbach.wordpress.com

It has been dormant for quite a while, however, I will soon start notifying subscribers about any progresses made with my creative projects.

Quote

How long have you been lucid dreaming/astral projecting?

I vaguely remember making some experiences of that kind already in early childhood. The first one I have a clear recollection of occurred in 1989, while I was a late adolescent studying Zen Buddhism and martial arts in Japan.

On 15.8.2023 at 8:15 PM, Pak_Satrio said:

Very cool experiences. I like your idea of making digital art of your dreams!

Thank you so much for your kind words!

I actually spent this whole year so far creating an entire universe based on my space dreams and spiritual experiences:

The World of Spacepunk

There are currently a collection of print images, an art book, and the first novel of a planned trilogy Spacepunk I -- Humanity at the Crossroads in the works.

upload image

More to come. 😉