Miffymog

Trump's election has brought to the fore many issues and the re-evaluation of them is a good thing. He wanted to 'shake things up', although I feel it is going well beyond what he initially imagined.

My thoughts on this topic.

To me enlightenment does not exist because it is out side of my current field of experience, and anything outside of that doesn't exist. I could put the words 'to me' at the end of the last sentence, but it doesn't seem right for some reason.

Awakening, I can relate to a bit more to, in that it is a gradual process and I do feel as though I am slowly awakening as time goes by. But really what I feel describes my process more is an un-knotting and letting go of tensions.

This comes about from my putting causes of tension in a positive light and then being able to let go of them. So I'm not even in the awakening camp either 

Quantum Physicists are nowhere near understanding what Lao Tzu was saying.

Each are their own areas of study. I've had many friends who used to think that Christianity was a pile of rubbish and that science could answer all the questions.

Now, I'm not Christian, but I have a natural instinct to stand up to any opinion that is held strongly. It's not that I always disagree with that opinion, I just feel it's right to put forward the other argument.

So -

If I want to understand and calculate the trajectory of a projectile, I don't go to the bible to help me.

If I want help and advice in dealing with someone whom I feel has wronged me, I don't go to a Physics book.

There is actually a book called the 'Tao of Physics' by Fritjof Capra that does a good job of comparing modern Physics with ancient spirituality, and there is a large overlap.

I am curious -- how do British schools portray the secession of the American colonies little more than a decade later? What I learned in school was incomplete and what my son was taught 30-some years later was bizarre (not just in comparison to what I was taught but also in comparison to what my own research has revealed).

 

I talked a while back with some half-drunk Japanese college girls about our war in the 1940s and it was very interesting for all of us -- self-serving indoctrination seems a universal characteristic of formal education regardless of the society/culture.

I did History up until the age of 16 and all we did for the last two years of this was the 20th Century. Lots on the 1st World War, League of Nations and 2nd World War.

Pre 20th Century we did cover when I was younger, but with a combination of my poor memory and there being quite a bit from 1066 onwards, I cant really remember much about the American War of Independence. It was in another country and had no direct affect on how our own country was governed, nor on our constitution.

I think it was portrayed as something of a natural and normal uprising. A country that was quite reasonably seeking independence.

------

On an aside, a greater myth portrayed in our classes is that of Churchill. When American joined the 2nd World War in 1941, Roosevelt wanted to invade France, through England, in the summer of 1942. Given Germany was already fighting Russia by then, the landing would still have been a success.

Did this happen? No. Why? Because Churchill wanted to sit back and watch the Germans and Russians kill each other. 20 millions Germans died, 20 millions Russians died, and 8 millions Jews were executed. How much less would these numbers have been if France was liberated in 1942 rather than 1944?

Instead, to delay this, Churchill insisted on attacking through Italy, where it was well know that some of the roads up the centre of the country were little more than horse tracks. This then at times meant progress could only be made by slowly loading all the troops and equipment on to boats, travelling up the coast a few miles, and then unloading them again.

Roosevelt kept asking Churchill to move the D-Day landings forward, and he kept delaying so much that the Russians got to Berlin first. The result of this? The Iron Curtain, the development of the Eastern block and the Russian oppression of Eastern Europe - Literally because of one man, Churchill.

In academic circles, Churchill's weaknesses are fairly well accepted, but they are definitely not something the British people want to hear about, so instead, he is still seen as a hero. Rather than the man who doubled the length of the War in Europe, increased the death toll by millions, and created a Russian super state.

 

p.s. There is a sadistic sparkle in his eyes at the beginning. Am I the only one seeing that energy? "Hunter" sadistic. 

 

Definitely - if I were to read too much into that, I would come to the conclusion that he is actually slightly struggling with it.

Ha. I normally have no interest in Kundalini what-so-ever, but curiosity got the better of my judgement and I watched the video. It had absolutely no effect on me at all. On the whole I was actually pretty relieved, but a little part of me might have liked a little bit of a fire work

I'm going to try to find a middle way between what's been said here. If, innately, you are either one way leaning or the other way then that is pretty much how you are. If you are struggling to come to terms with that direction, the imbalances that SeekerOfHealing mentions may then result.

Due to what tends to be accepted in our society, the ones who do find it harder to come to terms with their direction are going to be those that are more homosexual leaning. BUT, for me, if you are comfortable with who you are, you will be quite happily balanced and it will have NO impact on your spiritual progress.

So, the nature of your sexuality is 'a prior' to your energetic balance. Which then means I'm with the majority of those on this thread where TCM neither can, nor should try to 'heal' you.

It's strange. I can clearly remember going through the exactly the same thing. I had exactly the same feelings and exactly the same questions. The thing is, I've absolutely no idea what the answer was other than, in time, the tension I felt towards this just diminished and then vanished.

What is actually happening is that you are encountering a deeper tension inside of you that is trying to justify its existence in that situation and is doing so by attaching itself to the issue of what to do with your eyes.

Your encountering of this frustration is a good thing and shows that the practice is doing what it should be. Rather than worrying about what to do with the eyes, are you able to witness the tension behind it? I think it was just a general existential one for me that I'd never really noticed before because I'd never really just sat 'with myself' before.

In countries such as Thailand, what you describe is the norm. That home then becomes the family home and is past down the generations. In this case, there is no such thing as mortgages.

I feel the balance that is required is more within oneself. If you are able to balance your own yin and yang, then this is more important than external influences. If you are someone who gets lost in sexual energy, then chasing female sexual energy is just as draining as chasing male sexual energy.

Many years ago when I first found meditation I tried it on a variety of drugs such as MDMA, LSD and Marijuana. For me, all of the experiences were good.

The positive and negative aspects of this are complex. What are you're aims of meditation? Some times you are looking to alter your state of mind so that you can put reality into a better perspective. If so, then meditation on drugs can help as you are able to see the fragility of reality. But, you can then struggle to recreate these experiences when not on drugs.

If you are really trying to improve yourself, then little progress is made on an occasional trip.

On retreat, arguably, I surpassed the drug induced experiences. So I realised that natural methods are better. But are they in the end just as addictive?

Now, I don't go down that path at all.

Well I am not sure how to define it except they like things to stay the same.

 

Can you give me a list of "conservative" rule of law constitutionalists that are currently in government trying to make the US in that vision?

not found this all that easy to answer

In the UK

Labour / Left wing

Higher tax => more money for social services such as well fare and NHS

Conservative /  Right wing

Lower tax => less of a financial strain on people and businesses

Just watched an interesting program about what has happened to some of the smaller Scottish islands where humans have left and moved to the main land. One of them was a couple of square miles in area and they left a herd of cows on it to fend for itself.

40 years later and after roughly 10 generations, the cows (and bulls) are surviving very nicely. They've found a number that seems to balance well with amount of food that's available and are doing very well.

Depending on what wipes us humans out, there's a very good chance that mother nature will carry on quite happily with out us. 

You have individualists vs individualists calling each other left and right the propaganda machine is so huge now it will be almost impossible to overcome.

hmmmm - yes!

The history record tells the truth. Who dropped atomic bombs? hmmmmmm? who did the holocaust? HMMMMM? Oh I forgot the holocaust never happened what am I thinking?

Curiously enough, as long as you were of the right race, Hitler was quite left wing in many ways. He put a massive amount of effort into increasing the well-being of workers and their rights. He also had a very socialist view on sharing out the wealth, which he did do effectively. There are reasons he gained popularity amongst the people.

My experience of Tarot cards is that they help elucidate deeper issues or feelings that you were not that aware of. Once you then bring them into your conscious awareness, you are then able to evaluate them and, hopefully, resolve them.

For me, the bad things that have happened to you are, on the whole, due to the fact that the universe just does what it does. There is no ultimate rule that says things must run smoothly, and they often don't. And when they don't, we just have to work out how best to deal with them.

If the energy you felt from the cards was good, this could well mean that, inside, you're actually feeling ok about life.

If the universe if trying to push you somewhere, then the best way of doing that would be to get you laid off. Lots of changes in life come about from a challenge and a new start. As to which direction that is, I reckon you'll know what it is when it comes along.

Good luck, and sorry about the bad news you've had to deal with recently.

I can't remember the content of the story, but I remember reading some where here that a king wanted a present from his magician that made him happy when he was sad and sad when he was happy. The magician gave him a ring, and on the inside was inscribed the sentence '... and this shall pass ...'

"They say your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. Of course it does, it's called living."

Quote from a program about Terry Pratchett I happen to be watching right now.

 

 Ontological may be, fundamentally so?

 

Principles of Philosophy

In 1644, Descartes published (in Latin) his Principles of Philosophy where the phrase "ego cogito, ergo sum" appears in Part 1, article 7:

 

(Latin:) Sic autem rejicientes illa omnia, de quibus aliquo modo possumus dubitare, ac etiam, falsa esse fingentes, facilè quidem, supponimus nullum esse Deum, nullum coelum, nulla corpora; nosque etiam ipsos, non habere manus, nec pedes, nec denique ullum corpus, non autem ideò nos qui talia cogitamus nihil esse: repugnat enim ut putemus id quod cogitat eo ipso tempore quo cogitat non existere. Ac proinde haec cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum,[c] est omnium prima & certissima, quae cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat.

 

(English:) While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge, I think, therefore I am,[c] is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly.[h]

 

In other  words, this is an  ontological axiom: I,the observer,exist.

I felt this was coming...

The original aim of his discussion and the vast majority of the text is concerned with what he could know. It is also the soundest and most solid part of his argument. The final attribution really is the weakest and briefest element. A extravagant flurry to capture the readers attention, but it is neither the substance, nor the substantial!

Descartes discourse really has little to do with consciousness or existence, it was simply epistemological, what can I know? The search for what 'I am' or what 'am I', was not the aim of the the text.

The only thing Descartes felt he knew for certain was that he thought. The whole 'therefore I am' has been given far too much significance and has distorted the simpler argument he was following.

Big fan of trees, or rather my small Chinese Elm Bonsai tree I use as my focal point during my standing meditation. It only cost £10 on Amazon and they sent in a box through the mail. They'd cling-filmed the pot so no soil fell out and then filled the box it was in with lots of stuffing and the tree arrived in perfect condition.

What was not so perfect was that over the next three weeks it lost 90% of its leaves. It had basically been in ideal conditions at the shop and then took a massive beating when it was subjected to the conditions in my little flat. BUT, after it lost nearly every leaf, loads have grown back and its now back to around 50% of it's original count - thank god.

So, it's survived and now takes pride of place in my lounge and helps me mediate every day

And what if you are riding an ass?

'Spiritual sickness is like looking for an ass while riding an ass. Who's the ass? YOU'RE THE ASS!'

Marblehead - 21st century Daobum

Question: What is the realisation which is beyond understanding?

 

Nisargadatta Maharaj: "Imagine a dense forest full of tigers and you in a strong steel cage. Knowing that you are well protected by the cage, you watch the tigers fearlessly. Next you find the tigers in the cage and yourself roaming about in the jungle. Last -- the cage disappears and you ride the tigers!"

'Spiritual sickness is like looking for a donkey while riding a donkey. Who's the donkey? YOU'RE THE DONKEY!'

Foyan, twelfth-century Zen master.

I remember my first practice was a short meditation where I followed my breath for 10 minutes each day. The first thing about this was that it was fairly easy for me to do it every day. This can be important because much of the mental and physical response to a practice is simply down to conditioning, or repetition.

The second thing about this practice was that I enjoyed it, which is vital in order to keep up motivation. However, every one finds different things enjoyable so there may be some experimentation required.

What also helped was that I was introduced to it by more experienced mediators, the Friends of the Western Buddhist Order. As I got more and more drawn into this sect, I started to feel more and more uncomfortable so I simply stopped going. After a bit of research I found that it was a bit of dodgy group and that my instincts were correct - however, their instruction in meditation was first class because it was really down to earth and accessible and helped set up an interest in meditation for the rest of my life.

I'm afraid you'll struggle with that due to the different sects of Buddhism that all have quite different approaches. I know this is slightly frustrating as there must be some common aspects that they all share and there should be somewhere where these are clearly explained, but I've never found it - so I'll follow this thread with interest

Really?