liminal_luke

Something interesting is happening here. A thread that was started for the purpose of disparaging one person´s practice claims has turned into a thread focusing on disparaging the original disparager.

Quote from an Esther Perel podcast (Where should we begin?) A part of why sometimes, a woman likes the bad boys -- to be very very clear -- it´s not because she likes the man to be a predator. But it´s because the bad boy, as you describe, knows how to take care of himself perfectly well, thank you. And so he frees her from having to feel responsible for him, from having to worry about him, from having to experience his anxiety, and so since he can let go and is in his pleausre it frees her up to be in her pleasure.

Junior Marcus, When first dining at the qi gong buffet, it´s tempting to pick up a little of many dishes. I´d resist this temptation. Better, I think, to pick one thing and practice that one thing with dedication. Here are my reasons... (1) As a personal experiment, you´ll probably want to understand how a practice effects you. Say you´re doing 7 different things and your health improves. Which of your various practices is responsible for the change? It will be difficult to know with any certainty. (2) Every practice will create changes in your energetic body, and in some cases these changes are not harmonious with each other. It´s a little like trying to listen to a song on the radio and tuning into seven different frequencies at the same time. (3) Something magical happens with singular dedication. Practitioners who pick one thing just seem to get farther. Can I woo-woo out on you for a second? My personal belief is that a lot of the oomph that comes from a practice is due to unseen support from the spirit realm. Perhaps this is the power of lineage. Say you decide to pick stillness-movement as your practice. I believe there´s crucial support available from the spirits of master practitioners of that system who have passed on. These spirits are more likely to lend a hand if they see you´ve put all your practice eggs in their qi gong basket. I can´t prove this but it´s what I believe. I think we intuitively understand the power of doing one thing with intensive dedication, even if we often ignore this intuition (myself included). Try this thought experiment. Picture in your mind a master practitioner who has practiced hours a day for years and gained significant understanding and ability. Is this person more likely to be someone who does seven different things from different systems or just one?

Just to name a personal preference -- I like threads which promote more than ones that detract. The most productive discussion happens when someone starts (or continues) a practice and is willing to share a positive story about it, how doing XYZ has helped them in their life. Threads telling me not to do something don´t seem nearly as useful. Do knowledgable folks have an obligation to warn others of dead-ends? I get the argument and don´t dispute it. I just prefer the positive vibes I get when reading about people excited about doing great things.

Immortality or a slice of pecan pie with a side of vanilla Hagen Daz. Such a hard decision...

Hi Junior Marcus, There are a wide number of programs you might start for physical health improvement. I like Sheng Zhen healing qigong. I¨ll post a youtube of the first few movements below. By energy arts do you mean Sifu Jenny Lamb´s yigong? That´s another good one, in my opinion, though somewhat controversial. It can be very strong and purifying, more so than some are ready for. If it was me, I wouldn´t hesitate to explore Spring Forest, Stillness-Movement, or Flying Phoenix. Although I don´t have personal experience with these systems, they´ve gotten a lot of good press here and have been around a long time. I don´t think you can go wrong with any of these three. Good luck!

I recently participated in a Bon meditation workshop online with TWR. One of the practices taught was to meditate on stillness. Your post reminds me of what TWR called the stillness of being -- a stillness that is not dependent on an absence of movement.

“Am I perfect? No. But am I striving to be a better person every day? Also no.” Anonymous

I´ve read about some widely respected teachers who recommend "meditation without slight movement" and have always been intrigued by this idea. Does movement dissipate energy that would otherwise build in stillness? I´d be interested if people have experience/knowledge to share about the benefits of meditating without even slight movement.

Four hours of focused full lotus meditation for just $20 is a great deal but not everybody has $20. I offer a more economical alternative -- one hour of nonstop meditation for $5! The meditation will occur on a chair and my mind may wander a bit, but hey, ya get what ya pay for. (no disrespect meant, voidisyinyang. If you can heal people by meditating with their image in your mind and people want to pay you for it, more power to all concerned. I´m just having a bit of fun on a hard day.)

Not to worry -- he´s coming back.

I usually have a hard time taking in and understanding your posts, Everything. But that was beautiful...

I´d like to post this poem by Lord Byron in honor of all the bums who have left (or are on sabbatical). It´s called So we´ll go no more a roving. So, we'll go no more a roving So late into the night, Though the heart be still as loving, And the moon be still as bright. For the sword outwears its sheath, And the soul wears out the breast, And the heart must pause to breathe, And love itself have rest. Though the night was made for loving, And the day returns too soon, Yet we'll go no more a roving By the light of the moon. Lord Byron (George Gordon)

While it`s true that the elements of our body are on one level indistinguishable from the stuff of the broader universe, it`s hard to imagine the OP being written by a snail or a deer. Perhaps the redwood trees think such thoughts though I don`t speak redwood (I do hope to learn!). Thinking about this question of humanity, my mind skips to the question of God: immanent or transcendent? Is divinity suffused throughout the universe or apart from it? I`ve always come down on the side of those who believe it`s both. God is somehow both as close as my breath and infinitely distant, personally connected to me and utterly indifferent. Perhaps the mystery of what it means to be human is not so different -- we´re inseparable from stardust and yet remain uniquely ourselves. This makes no sense, I know, but don´t blame me -- it´s a nonsensical universe.

I´ve no idea about the Tin Yat Dao Sect but I know Yoda from his postings way back when and was very fond of him. He came off as a genuine good guy. Yoda was (is?) that rare spiritual seeker type with a bold -- dare I say fun -- experimental streak. I enjoyed following his spiritual adventures.

My view isn`t particularly daoist, just my own experience. Whether or not it`s good to engage in political discussion depends entirely on what part of the self is doing the engaging. Are you debating from your small egoic self or your big sky self? It makes all the difference. In itself, politial discussion is neither good nor bad. Pay attention to how a given political discussion feels in your body. That`s a big clue. Do you feel shut down or opened up? Do you feel heavy or light? The answers to these questions will tell you whether you`re debating from your best and brightest self or a sniveling imposter. Politics can and should be joyful. (And that`s my political opinion on the matter.)

Aetherous...Aetherous...Aetherous...I get that they don´t seem funny to you, but the videos posted above are meant to be humorous. The Michelle Wolf piece is obviously meant to get laughs. She´s being a comedian. Not, perhaps, a comedian to your taste but a comedian nevertheless. The video of the abortion doctor is just a guy goofing off, blowing off steam. He´s probably sick and tired of those self-righteous types picketing his workplace and is deliberately provoking them to have a little fun. Ya gotta take these things in context. Or not I guess. But if you don´t take them in context you´re more likely to misinterpret the message.

@Aetherous When it comes to abortion, everybody thinks the earlier the better. Don´t you think? There´s not an abortion doctor in the country who thinks there should be more late-term abortions and less early-term ones. Do you imagine that liberal pro-choice folks are rubbing their hands with sadistic glee at the thought of near-birth abortions? I can assure you they are not. It´s just that for one reason or another sometimes those lesser-of-two-evil early abortions don´t happen and the only choice is a late-term abortion or none at all. In this circumstance, I´m not willing to tell a woman that she can´t have an abortion she wants to have. Does this mean I think waiting was a good thing? No, it does not.

When does life begin? In posing this question you seem to assume that I know the answer -- or think I do -- and am just holding out to be difficult. That´s not the case. Obviously heterosexual sex kicks off the whole shebang and there are a number of signposts along the way that we might point to as start-of-life moments. You picked an obvious albeit early one, the moment of conception. Somebody else might say the moment when there´s a beating heart, or when the fetus can feel pain. Birth, the moment when the fetus physically separates from the mother, seems a pretty clear demarcation point. An argument could be made that newborns don´t experience themselves as separate from the mother even after birth, and perhaps haven´t really come into their own as separate beings until this awareness kicks in. There´s also the spiritual argument that the baby is alive as a separate being after it´s ensouled, whenever that is. At some point between the moment when Harry screws up the gumption to ask Sally out to the movies and the point where a newborn´s psychological self-awareness finally dawns, we can say that a baby is an honest-to-goodness living human being. For the most part, it´s a gradual process. I agree with you that if there´s gonna be a medical intervention (morning after pill, abortion) then the earlier the better. But where should we draw the line? I don´t pretend to know. To me, there´s a certain openness to this not-knowing that feels right. Because I don´t know when life begins, I can have empathy for all and not try to control the decisions others make about their lives.

At what point in development does a potential human cross over and become an actual human being? People can give various answers to this question based on belief or religious conviction but very few of us, if any, know. Aetherous has said that he believes life begins at conception. Nevertheless, he´s willing to consider the morning after pill in cases where a pregnancy has resulted from rape. Some Christians go further and prohibit birth control, prohibit masturbation on the grounds that it represents the spilling of sacred seed. Others allow abortion up to a certain point in the pregnancy process. Still others allow abortion right up until almost the moment of birth itself. Who is right? Perhaps there´s an enlightened sage somewhere who could give an enlightened answer but such sages are scarce in the halls of congress. Since our lawmakers are unqualified to answer this question with any great confidence, they have no business making laws about it. This matter is thus best left to the person most directly effected, the pregnant woman.

That people can be rude? I see the whole process of baby-making as a kind of external alchemy. Pregnant women, the as yet unborn, newborns -- all these beings potentially inhabit and draw energy from deeper dimensions of reality than are otherwise commonly accessed. This is inherently fascinating and draws people´s attention. That is what I think.

This is a beautiful story and what makes it beautiful, in my opinion, is the woman´s life-affirming choice. But what if instead of choosing to have her son the woman was forced to give birth? That would be a very different story. For me, being pro-choice is not about being pro-abortion. It´s about respecting other people. It´s about not assuming that everybody else ought to live by my values. It´s about giving people the freedom to make their own decisions about their own lives.

On second thought...

I suppose I could speculate. I´ve never gotten a woman pregnant nor been pregnant myself so I´m not sure how much my speculation would be worth. Several men here have related their personal stories of grief around abortion and I in no way want to discount those experiences. Nor do I want to discount the fact that for many women (perhaps most?) abortion is likewise a wrenching decision. Still, I continue to think that women who want to have abortions should have the legal right to do so. The OP wondered what opinions people on the board had and I presented mine. Perhaps I should of instead linked to the recent conversation we´ve had about that topic? I´ve said my piece and I think I´ll stop here. Those who wish more details on my view are welcome to plug the word abortion into the search button and my posts on the topic are sure to pop right up. This is such an emotional topic for many. I´m not sure I´d be doing anyone, least of all myself, any favors if I was to continue to participate in an argumentative back-and-forth.

When faced with a choice of horrors, it´s usually best to choose the least horrific -- and sometimes that´s abortion. Or at least there are people who have thought so in the past and will think so in the future, and far be it from me to judge them.