Sloppy Zhang

I'm not up on all of the conspiracy stuff these days. It doesn't seem useful to worry about what might have happened, I try to spend my time thinking about what is happening.

 

In regards to that, rather than trumpet the "Chinese Holocaust" or allude that the American government caused it (i.e. we drugged Mao via his Doctor then drugged Reagan for God only knows what reason), why don't you worry about Darfur or something relevant to the here and now.

 

Aaron

Understanding history is a great way to understand the present.

Many present day problems are the direct repercussions of past events, and many present "new ideas" for how to fix solutions are, in fact, not new at all- they have been done in the past by various peoples, and their outcome is quite obvious.

Yet people continue making the same decisions.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

-Albert Einstein

It is a temple style martial art that (according to the grandmaster) was a secret style taught on one of the Taoist Mountains. According to some of my personal research, I believe the art may have connections to some very old Hakka Style Hei Kung martial arts that were incorporated into one of the "Sorcery" Taoist sects.

 

For the reasons I stated earlier, I prefer not to mention any names.

 

 

 

Yes, I have incorporated the martial art into my other teachings.

I see, thanks.

I would not feel comfortable giving out his name in any kind of public way. With all the crap that happened on this forum with me, max and my ex-teacher, I will not give out anyone's name on this forum again.

To answer the second half of the question. I told him I would teach him if he wanted, but he seemed very uncomfortable with the Qi aspect of the art. In my experience, some guys who have done alot of training in external martial arts have a difficult time changing body habits to be able to allow energy to flow. It is a complete 180 degree shift in mentality and many cannot make this change. Instead, though what he did was to go back and study his Kali and escrima because he saw similarities in my style and those. He told me later that the experience shocked him so much that he wanted to make sure he would never be overhwmelmed by an opponent's speed again and that is why he redoubled his striking training...

 

 

I understand what you mean. This was my reaction also. In each of these scenarios I mentioned, I suggested they train with me or my teacher, but they always refused. I came to find out later that it was because the type of energy they felt freaked them out. In class when newbies have come in and they feel the energy for the first time, some people have very powerful experiences. A couple times I've seen people who only got a modest jolt of energy, begin weeping etc.. One guy passed out and relived his childhood. (we thought we were going to have to take him the ER. Thankfully he came out of it.) So, I came to learn that the energy itself can really mess with peoples' view of reality. The energy of this art is wierd. there is not only very real physical pain, but because it is spirit fighting energy, many times spiritual and emotional issues are brought to the surface and this is a very strange feeling. The first time I was hit, I wanted to run out of the room screaming like a little girl. LOL

 

Some people I met did. but they were already interested in the spiritual aspect of the art. IME, people who rely very heavily on their physical strength are too freaked out by the energy. another important aspect that I didn't really mention is that the art I practice was also used for fighting evil spirits. As such, the forms when done correctly, are extremely harsh on the spirit psyche. In order to really learn the art, there can be a very devastating blow to the ego and the way one's reality is viewed. This drives 95% 0f all students away in the first week because it can be emotionally painful and frightening. Ironically, the big, tough muscly guys are the first to quit...

 

Nice insights!

If you don't mind my asking, what art do you practice? Who did you learn from? Is it connected to the martial arts you teach in your Thunder Wizard path?

good point. sounds like your art was very helpful in that situation. My apologies for my blanket generalized statement...

No worries! You did raise legitimate concerns, and they are an important aspect of real fighting/self defense that is not addressed if you just train in an MMA situation.

Allow me to preface this by saying that I am 100% dedicated to seeking out and training in the most real, applicable arts out there, be they spiritual disciplines or martial disciplines. When I was in my young teenage years, I trained karate very diligently for two hard years (I was doing knuckle push ups in my gravel drive way for fun because I wanted to condition my hands.... at age 14), and I really bought into the whole "a trained fighter will beat an untrained fighter easily" and things like that.

Then one day an older guy (around 20) comes in, and I spar with him, and he pretty much uses dirty boxing, nothing I had ever encountered before in karate, completely untrained by karate standards, and my teachers really chewed him out on his poor technique, but he beat the CRAP out of me that day. That's when I realized that all the work I had put into would have left me DEAD should I have had to use that in a real encounter, and the whole reason I studied martial arts was (at the time, though it's expanded a bit since then) for self defense, to defend myself and others.

So I'm all about finding the realest of the real arts, so please try and keep that in mind with the following comments...

While true in many cases with normal martial artists, I would have to disagree with the "every time" quote. MMA fighters have little understanding about how to fight against a well trained internal martial artist.

I have never studied any kind of grappling. One of my good friends is a Machado BJJ black belt. He's also a certified instructor of Thai Boxing, Shotokan Karate Black belt and studied Wing Chun, Kali, escrima and Jeet kun do with Dan Inosanto for many years. He is Very well respected in MMA... He goes all over the world teaching BJJ and MMA. Back when I was training every day in Internal Taoist martial arts, he saw me practicing my forms (we were roommates) he came over to me and asked to spar. (He had always poo-pood any idea of internal Qi energy.) I told him in my art, we did not spar. Nevertheless, he insisted claiming that I couldn't hurt him. I said "OK, tell me when you're ready." He adopted a defensive posture and said "I'm ready." I let loose with a some combinations on his face, head and body. I was barely grazing him but letting enough qi energy into the body shots so he could feel it. He ended up covering up in a ball saying "Ok, Ok, I give I give." He then got up and said "how did you do that?" I shrugged and said that I was just grazing him. He said "No, seriously, how did you do that? I've never seen anything like that. I couldn't do anything!" I said. "That is internal kung fu."

Would you mind giving the name of his person? Did he express any interest in learning this style which was so obviously superior to what he had studied? If he's very respected within MMA, would he corroborate this story, and would people believe him?

Another friend of mine who was studying MMA a few years ago also wanted to spar with me. He was a big muscly guy who was very proud of his ability to take a punch. By then my energy had increased significantly. I told him again that in my art, we do not spar because it is too dangerous. You don't pull a gun unless you plan on shooting. he laughed and insisted that my "qi nonsense" wouldn't hurt him. I said, OK. He adopted a defensive posture and I tapped him very lightly on the forearm releasing some qi into his enormous forearm. His eyes welled up with tears, his face got very pale and he said, "no fair you hit a nerve center." I said, "yeah. I only gave you 5% energy. Wanna spar for real this time?" He declined and never asked to spar with me again.

One of my senior students was meeting with me and my previous teacher and he wanted to know if my teacher thought he could beat a grappler who had him in a full naked choke. My teacher told him to put him in whatever hold he wanted. So, my student got on his back and wrapped his legs around my teacher and got in a real deep naked choke. My teacher reached back and grabbed his thigh and shot some qi into him. My student was wriggling around and screaming trying to get away but couldn't because my teacher was on top of him... Very funny...

Interesting.

MMA is very good stuff against the average person. But, in my experience, it cannot compete with real internal martial arts. (which is not easy to find.)

These are nice stories, did any of these people seek to learn from you or someone else? I find it hard to believe that someone who trains for so long and who suddenly sees an art which addresses a whole in their strategy DOESN'T immediately want to know more. We saw it happen with BJJ after UFC- fighters saw that there were significant gaps in ground game which could be exploited, and now, even if you are a primarily stand up fighter, you gotta have good ground fighting skills to be competitive.

Now you can make the argument that peoples' egos just wouldn't accept that they lost to qi, that they didn't want to admit that years of training hadn't done anything for them but.... I just don't really buy it. When I saw that my training was deficient, I went to address it. When professional fighters saw that their ground game was deficient, they went to address it.

I find it hard to believe that with some of these people, they didn't pursue it.

there is the other aspect of mutliple opponents. It is important to remember that BJJ and MMA are designed for sport matches. On the street, in an alley with lots of broken glass, the last thing you want to do is roll around on the ground. But more often than not, you are fighting multiple opponents who may be armed. In that scenario, MMA is not very effective at all. Sure you might get the first guy in a hold, but, you have no way to defend from his buddy hitting you on the head with a beer bottle...

These kinds of statements always make me chuckle. You have to be able to judge the situation.

I've been in a fight where there was a guy who was seriously more muscular than me, but didn't know how to fight. He goes in, head down, and starts swinging. He pushes me up against a wall, so what do I do? I wrap my arm around his neck, roll down onto my back, and put him in a guillotine choke and he's passed out in seconds. I roll him off of me, and walk away. His buddies who saw the fight were like, "wtf was that?" and I was out of there before they even knew what was happening (they thought their friend was going to win quickly).

Point is, I saw an opportunity to finish a fight in seconds, as opposed to trade blows with him and have his friends come in and help him out if it looked like he was going to lose. There wasn't any broken glass around. They didn't all jump at me. I had to make a decision. If it looked like they were more eager to fight me, I wouldn't have done what I did. If it looked like a rough ground, I wouldn't have done that.

But seeing as how I ended the "fight" in a couple of seconds, and didn't have any noticeable injuries after that, I'd say my rudimentary knowledge of BJJ really came in handy.

Of course, knowing a qi martial art that legitimately works would be my preference, because honestly he was a lot more muscular than me, and it's not that I think I'm that weak, it's just I don't work out nearly as much as some of these other guys, and having a defense against someone who is significantly stronger than you is, I would consider, a part of self defense that needs to be addressed.

And if a qi martial art is a legitimate alternative, then I'd like to explore that.

However, MMA has done a lot for the martial arts community in terms of creating accountability. Yes, there are rules. There's no broken glass or multiple opponents or knives or guns. But when it comes to two people facing off.... well there ya go. Even the internal martial arts have, historically, proven their stuff in a public fighting arena.

I just find it weird that people with such a superior art (qi based martial arts) who are so committed to spreading an art, have not taken it to at least a semi-professional outlet. You don't even have to fight, all you gotta do is say, "I'll touch you and you'll go down!" and just accept all challengers. Just gotta be a touch. But "one touch and you'll want to stop" or "a few grazes and you'll go down".

The more guys you do this to, the more people hear about it, the higher up it'll get, and pretty soon you'll run into guys like Brock Lesnar, and then you'll have successfully changed the world of martial arts.

Not to mention science!

Rene.... I will always concede, especially if i'm expected...to win

 

 

Peace!

I wouldn't say that, as sticking to such a strategy prevents you from changing as the situation calls for it

-What if Wikileaks is a set up by both the chinese and american goverments to mold mass consumers into the opinion that the internet has to be regulated, based on fear of cyber terrorism

 

-What if Wikileaks ideals finally result in what they claim they are trying to prevent..namely censorship,...,

 

-For how long can they exist as a radically free idealistic organization without being misused as spindoctors?

Yes, I am concerned about all of these as well- especially about citing potential threats as reasons to increase security and take away freedoms.

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both." - Paraphrased quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

Have any of you signed the petition?

Yes.

I've been talking this over with some people from the journalism school at my college. The thing that comes up a lot is the Pentagon Papers case.

There are some situations in which the government can intervene and stop documents from getting out- but they have to CLEARLY be putting peoples' lives in danger, and CLEARLY hurting our war efforts, and things of that sort. Which means that stuff like, "well it could harm people" isn't good enough- HOW does it harm people? HAS it harmed people? are clear cut questions which MUST be answered if they want to stop this.

Furthermore, in this situation, wikileaks can make the case that it is acting just like any other journalism source- it's just passing along the information. If anyone is to go down for espionage, it's the people who ORIGINALLY got the documents, and then gave them to wikileaks.

Unless Julian Assange, or some other person affiliated with wikileaks got the documents themselves, they can't be held accountable. It would have to be the people who got the documents first.

At least, that's the theorizing that's going on in the academic circles I'm in.

Dear Slappy,

As is Life - It is an IQ test.

Read the information and make your OWN decision.

Well obviously everyone can make their own decision, but I would like to hear what YOUR decision is. You made the thread and supply the information, and you make some rather interesting points in various threads, and I would like to know where you're coming from. If all I have is the opinions, biases, and prejudices I bring to the topic, then I'm never going to understand the points you make in the way you see them.

So I'd like to hear from you something like a thesis statement, central opinion, abstract, or whatever other term you'd like to use for "central position" from which you post during this (and a few other) discussions.

This would further my own understanding, and help smooth out discussion. Because before I take up a discussion with someone, I like to actually know what it is they are saying. Keyword being, "what it is they are saying". Not what I'm saying. Not what media says. Not what a textbook says. Not what wiki says. What it is the other person is saying.

And in this case, that means you

I used to admin a server of around 500 so called "Anonymous" members. This really isn't so much "cyber warfare" as a number of targetted server raids that aren't hard at all to pull off.

 

The media's jargon is completely off base here =/ not every person on the underbelly of the internet is a hacker, much less a "hacktivist!"

 

The government's corruption is no new news; the documents Wikileaks has released are easily available online if you know where to look (zoklet? 4chan?). Unfortunately it's been a few years since I've been connected with that community and I'm a bit off base.

 

The charges against Julian Assange are false,

 

bright blessings,

 

Koma

The "media's jargon" as you put it is a very key strategy when it comes to "framing the terms" of any given situation.

Look at the "New York mosque" controversy- the place wasn't even a full fledged "mosque" to begin with, but the very fact that they used such a word suddenly stuck all kinds of images and associations in peoples' minds. And once you have defined something one way in large media, it's VERY hard to change it.

The first to define the terms wins when it comes to media. If you have framed someone as a "hacker", "terrorist", or something like that, then you already have a tremendous step up on the other side.

I mean, who is going to step forward and say, "I support a known terrorist", ESPECIALLY in this climate?

That's not it at all. It's all in how you say it. There is a polite way and an impolite way to advocate the purpose of life, especially when someone has alluded to what they believe it to be. The polite way is to say, "well that's all and good, I'm glad you find that works for you. Here's my idea, what do you think of it?" The impolite way is to say, "really you shouldn't have a purpose" or "Buddha is the only purpose" or "what the hell you been smoking Jethro, don't you know that thinkin's gonna send you to hell?"

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I feel that this a gross over exaggeration. I haven't seen anyone say anything like that.

Just because someone puts forward an alternate view does not mean they are automatically putting you down. Perhaps you should go back and read the actual words of the posts.

For example, here is exactly what I said in my first post:

I prefer to ask: why does life need to have a purpose?

Nowhere did I say anything like, "really you shouldn't have a purpose" or "you're doing it wrong" or "this is useless to anyone" or anything of the sort.

Here is another:

I will answer from the point of view of my interpretation of Mahayana Buddhism.

I don't see anything absolutist in this, he made it pretty clear he was talking about his own interpretation.

From where I'm sitting, you are adding things that are not there. You shared your view, and I shared mine. Other people have shared theirs.

You get the idea. I have absolutely no problem with people expressing their opinion, I have a problem with absolutisms. I might be wrong and I understand that, but I work this out on the premise of faith. Faith that in the end it doesn't matter in the least, so this was a thread where I was giving a lesson, a lesson that really does work for me.

Perhaps you should check some of the words you are using....

You say "it just works for me", but at the same time, you say, "giving a lesson", which already kind of implies a little something about relative positions of you and other people.

Then when people present alternative views (in ways which I strongly do not think were overly antagonistic from what I've read, but feel free to quote exact posts you have a problem with), and you react.... well you don't readily accept that they even have a place in your thread.

If that upsets people, so be it.

Who do you think is upset?

I shouldn't stop trying to help people because a certain few feel offended that someone as menial as I tries to help, or thinks they have anything to add to this weighty topic.

Again, with just a few words you are convey many subtle implications.

You are "trying to help people", as if there are people needing help. And there are people who need help, and maybe you've helped people... but it again conflicts with a previously stated goal of just throwing out "what works for you". So it seems you're not just saying, "hey, I found out what worked for me", but that you're also saying, "let me teach you something you need to know".

Furthermore, you say "or thinks they have anything to add to this weighty topic", which can come across as a bit derogatory. It kinda comes off as, "who are you to say anything, what do you have to contribute?"

The one thing I dislike is arrogance. I honestly don't feel I am any better than anyone else, but in the same way I also believe that I have as much to offer others as they have to offer me. If people have issues with authority and issues with who can and can't teach, that's their issue, not mine.

Who do you think has issues?

Why do you insist on saying "teach"? Why not "share"?

I'm here to learn first and teach second, but I do have things I can teach others, and if so, why shouldn't I? If someone doesn't think it's worth learning, then that's okay, they don't have to, however if someone does feel that what I shared helped, then maybe that's a good thing.

That's a great thing! But "teaching" sort of implies that you are an authority, and that someone presenting an alternative view is.... less than welcome. And to be honest, I feel you've made other views seem notably less welcome.

If you don't want other people to come in and start discussing (in any way they seem fit, because people generally discuss that way), and just want to post personal revelations, I highly suggest you get a personal practice forum! Furthermore, you can edit out any posts you feel don't fit into the spirit of your threads!

The reality of the Cultural Revolution of China can be seen through the actions following the Cultural Revolution as compared to other like events.

 

I think the results of this timeline of like events may interest you.

 

History:

1: Preceeding the cultural Revolution there was the McCarthyism of USA beginning in 1950 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism.

 

2: The Cultural revolution of China 1965 to 1968 (McCarthism by a different name? http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cultural_revolution.htm )

 

3: Now think the following events of the Cultural Revolution listed at this webpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Four

 

4: Who did China punish for the cultural revolution and when? Was Mao Tse Tung Punished or someone else? (The answer is in the timelne of events in the above, #4, website). If you ReaLLy want to see Mao Tse Tung - read what he wrote: archive/mao/works/red-book/

 

By the way - before the war - Mao was a librarian. He valued books. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

 

5: This is where things get interesting.

During the Cultural Revolution and afterwards - Mao seemed to have developed a case of Alzheimers disease where he was mentaly incapicatated - only When President Richard Nixon went to China in 1972...Nixon's_visit_to_China to visit Mao - Mao's mental problem cleared up - for 2 weeks and then returned after Nixon left.

 

You will need to do some research, if you want more convincing, but the details are in the book listed on this webpage as written by Mao Tse Tung's personal Doctor: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Private_Life_of_Chairman_Mao

 

I've read the book and what I discovered was that one day after Mao died - his doctor (Had Air tickets in hand) flew from China to USA where he was rewarded highly with recognition for services. (The information is largely in the description of the Author - who was Mao's doctor)

 

A few years later - during the presidential term of Ronald Reagan - Ronald Reagan

developed the same disease... but it was kept hidden untill after he left office.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

So.... what is it exactly that you are saying?

The cultural revolution isn't the fault of the Chinese? It's only the fault of a few Chinese? It's the fault of some evil foreign empire that was trying to harm the Chinese country from the inside?

One of Assange's accusers leaves for the middle east. This is getting twisted!

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/assange-accuser-stops-cooperating-police/

Twisted indeed!

In philosophy classes in the past, I've come across forms of dialectic. It's basically argument, but the goal is not to win- in arguing, two (or more) people learn more about their side, the side of the opposition, and can explore a topic more deeply, coming across concepts that neither would have discovered on their own (at least in the areas of it I studied, which focused on Plato, and his use of it in some Socratic dialogues).

So even if your goal of argument is not "to win", that doesn't mean it is useless either.

As many have mentioned in the "has TTB helped you?" thread, discussion can lead to alternative views, opening new paths, allow you to get new perspectives on your own path, question yourself, test your convictions, change, or keep the ones you already have, etc etc.

No reason to shy away from a good bit of contention, as long as you maintain your awareness of what it is you are doing, and do not get caught up in any juvenile actions.

Hello Sloppy Zhang,

 

I see you are not quite ready for what I have to offer you. I hope you find peace and joy in your life.

 

Aaron

I prefer to look at the mechanisms behind things, rather than just the things themselves.

If someone says, "the purpose of life is to live", or "there is no purpose to life," or "there is a God who loves us" or "there is no God", I'm less concerned with examining their conclusion and debating its validity than I am with understanding the underlying mechanisms and thought processes that lead people to those conclusions. Because anyone can say, "well there is a God and I know there is because I believe it and no I can't prove it to you so you're just gonna have to take my word for it" and there will really be nothing to talk about, because we're just talking about peoples' beliefs. But if you start looking at, "what does a presence/absence of God/purpose do? How do people influence/are influenced by such things?" THAT is something you can explore and have a real discussion about.

Why do people find a need to have a purpose? There may not be any inherent "purpose" (even if it's just "to live", "to experience" or whatever), but the fact that you even chose to title your thread "the purpose" means that concept, "purpose", makes a big deal- if not to you, then at least to other people (which may be why you decided to "trick" us into the thread).

Regardless, "purpose" plays a big role, whether you think there is one or not, and I find it interesting that such a discussion is even on the table, and that it has been "on the table" since (most likely) the origin of humankind.

But if you don't want to have this discussion, you don't have to.

Well I tried. Obviously you're not ready for simplicity, it's all a bit too little to reconcile everything you've been told. I would however recommend rather than dismissing it, that you try it first. After all I'm not promising you enlightenment or an end to rebirth, rather simply a moment of true, unadulterated, joy. I'm sure Buddha wont send you to hell for that. Afterwards if you still feel the need to be enlightened, then go for it, nothing wrong with that.

 

Aaron

Here you go, a pat on the back, rather than a discussion-

GREAT post, really liked it! It resonated very well with me and my life. I really like the description you had about the ice cream part. Children really do enjoy each new experience for what it is. One of the best posts I've seen. I think I'm going to give your post another plus point!

[edit] I gave myself a plus point here because I've been wondering if I could, so I tried, and I did, so yeah, learn something new every day

I prefer to ask: why does life have to have a purpose?

 

Why do we feel the need to attach purpose to something?

 

What do we get by having a purpose? What do we lose by not having a purpose? What do we get by not having a purpose? What do we lose by having a purpose? Where is all that coming from?

You do realize you're asking, "What is the purpose?" You're just trying to be clever about it.

 

Aaron

Vortex addresses some of the stuff I was hinting at with my response-

"We must discover the cause of our own ignorance." - Bruce Lee.

 

Underlying all your varied pain & desire is often a single life challenge. And once you find it, you may find how everything in your life was a result of or attempt to cope with it, in varied ways.

 

Now, if you dig down deep enough and are lucky enough to pinpoint YOUR root issue...and can successfully resolve it...then you will become an emotionally free man in this life. I daresay, even a HAPPY man...finding true happiness!

 

Ohh, and I am getting close now...on this dreadful lifelong quest!

 

But simply living is not going to accomplish this, and you will only continue to suffer...

In trying to cope with something, people often come up with a purpose. "I am suffering... why, there must be a purpose, I can't be suffering for no reason... I know, it must be my karma! That makes sense, I deserve it." or, "why can't I find true love? Maybe that's not God's plan for me, that must be it, I know, I'll go become a celibate monk."

Or maybe they kick around many different ideas, but realize, "oh wow, the purpose of life is to live! Yay! Just be present, enjoy the moment, no strings attached! Whoopee!" (not saying you necessarily say/think all of those things, but I for one have seen it happen in that way, and it's representative of a more general concept).

So I'm saying to ask yourself why you need a purpose- is it because you aren't happy? Is it because you don't have what you want out of life? Well what is it you want out of life? Why are you not getting it? Why are you trying to come up with a purpose? To make an excuse?

Do you gain an excuse by having a purpose? Do you lose the ability to make an excuse if you have a purpose, but don't fulfill it? Do you gain freedom by not having a purpose? Do you lose freedom by having a purpose? Who gives this purpose? Etc etc.

Vaj,

 

The fact I never asked anyone the question about the purpose of life tells me most of you likely saw the length of the post and didn't bother to read it, instead you just spouted your own brand of religion... "Oh Yay! The Purpose of life? I already know that, don't need to read this! Insert basic Buddhist propaganda and presto. Saved myself three or four minutes of reading and no one is the wiser."

 

Why is everyone so gung ho to answer the posts, but not actually read what others have to say? It's like the only reason some people come here is to hear themselves talk.

 

Aaron

I feel like some people freak out when they don't get answers in the form they expected...

Perhaps you should look more closely at what people have been writing, and look more closely at your preconceived notions, examine why you are feeling what you feel when reading posts that you think "don't fit", or are "not what you're talking about".

Maybe they are? Maybe these people really DO just want to hear themselves talk? Maybe you have done a poor job in conveying your meaning? Maybe you just don't want to hear anything which does not conform to your mental package of what a TTB response looks like?

I'm going to paraphrase a point someone made in another thread.....

Just because nobody comments doesn't mean people don't watch. What are we supposed to say, "nice video"? That's not a comment of substance.

The number of comments do not necessarily reflect the number of people who view the thread, nor does it reflect the quality of attention paid to the contents of said thread.

Hmm... well I was hoping after you read what I wrote, you wouldn't care so much about either.

 

Aaron

I didn't give you the purpose for life, because the only thing I have the answer to is the purpose for my own life. You need to find the purpose in your own life. I can tell you that we are alive because we live. I'm just not sure if that's enough for most people. If it's not, I certainly hope you find a purpose, if you don't, then I certainly hope you can find that complete peace you feel when you can just stop and enjoy something for what it is.

 

Thanks for reading this far and I truly hope you find your purpose.

 

Aaron

I prefer to ask: why does life have to have a purpose?

Why do we feel the need to attach purpose to something?

What do we get by having a purpose? What do we lose by not having a purpose? What do we get by not having a purpose? What do we lose by having a purpose? Where is all that coming from?

I prefer to ask: why does life need to have a purpose?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnjHQEjvNKc&feature=related

I come to taobums because it talks about the nature of reality, especially what it means to be human and how to help achieve our real potential. anything else is fundamentally irrelevant, external, and especially distracting.

 

daily life is one thing, but mixing basic things like breathing, enjoying a sunrise, finding some peace, etc. with politics, or anything else, is absurd.

 

who people are, and how they choose to carry out their daily life, including political affairs, is extraneous.

 

I am sure the internet has plenty of other forums on politics and world affairs, but few that attract so many experienced and knowledgeable people that discuss things to the point.

If a thread doesn't appeal to you, don't go in it.

If we can have four or five or six masturbation threads on the front page (has been that way at times), it won't kill us to have one or two politics threads in the first three.

I don't see that there is anything extraneous, irrelevant, or external in something that is supposedly ell encompassing, eternal, ever pervasive, and UNIFIED.

All is one.... except for politics, religion, economics, and anything else that isn't breathing or the sunrise???

Sorry, that just doesn't make sense (to me, anyway).

Again, if a thread doesn't appeal to you, don't go in it!

Thetaobums has always been a pretty catch all forum, and there's nothing wrong with that (in my opinion).

My opinion,

 

you wont know for sure until you die... hmm... well apparently you wont even know after you die, so there's no way of knowing, so why worry about it? The hypothetical is the most troublesome invention of mankind.

 

Aaron

I've heard it said that high level spiritual cultivators can keep their consciousness during the reincarnation process, and at the very least, can control their next incarnation, or at the very least arrange it so that in their next lives they can easily find "the path" again so they can resume where they left off. As they get better at this (assuming they don't achieve enlightenment in the next life), they can control their incarnation so their next incarnation easily recovers memories, then incarnate so there is no loss at all, and then hopefully enlightenment, so the work can continue across lifetimes.

I am not political in the sense that I don't follow fads, get caught up in partisan campaigns, put any stock in any smear campaign people run, and put even less stock in people who are all "goody two shoes, the real American golden guy/gal".

However, I DO care about the mechanisms for how my country is run, and how those mechanisms impact my life, the lives of those I know, the country as a whole, and the international scene. I try to keep up with how politics ACTUALLY happens, not with how people SAY that politics happens.

Find out who makes the decisions, how people get elected, what people and what positions are appointed, who is doing the appointing, who is funding projects, who owns what, who is connected with whom (in general, "follow the money"), things like that.

I do not think that information should be released that could jeopardize peoples' lives. But as it was pointed out to me, even that is not really a clear cut and defined goal. It's quite easily for someone to go on a mass killing spree just with the information you can find easily on facebook. Does that mean facebook should be removed (censored by some governing body) because it puts peoples lives in jeopardy?

I understand that some level of "secrecy" is had when negotiating, be it in politics, business, or even personal relationships. If person A, B, and C are trying to get something done, but person B doesn't like person C, person A might tell something only to person B to get everyone to go along with something, then turn around and tell person C something opposite. There are various levels of lying and deceit that are rather harmless but which occur all the time even in a day-to-day basis.

But those two above reasons (protecting lives and "it's an everyday thing") should NOT be used to cover up REAL crimes, REAL deceit, and REAL deliberately manipulative and exploitative actions.

And in a government when (in theory) the check to the government is the PEOPLE, well, the PEOPLE need to know, and hold their government accountable.

I may not be "political", but I do like to examine my government and hold them accountable.

For the most part I love Wikileaks and I support their overall mission. I only wish Wikileaks would be a touch less dramatic in their execution. I hope this will happen soon with the recent change in management. Julian just liked to get everyone riled up a bit too much for my liking. He liked to build tension and create hype. I think he was doing that to maximize exposure and impact, but this has also had some drawbacks to the mission of Wikileaks. I still like Julian even with his flaws as I see them.

Well in one sense creating hype let's people know who you are, and let's them know that something is happening.

If Julian Assange suddenly died, it would be a big deal. If every wikileaks site suddenly shut down, it'd be a big deal. People would ask questions and investigate.

There is a certain safety in living in the public eye. It limits the number of things people can do to you, and it limits the number of people who can do them to you.

I am going to say the same thing I said when asked about whether sages of the past were martial artists- the tao, way of nature, universal energy, unending consciousness, WHATEVER way you want to put it, can be embodied in everything.

Talking about philosophy is nice. But philosophy is, in and of itself, rather abstract. "Empty your cup", "the tree that bends will not break", "go with the flow", "all is one". Those are nice philosophical statements. Though you could say they are pretty sterile. They are separated from the hubbub that is life. It's easy to stand a thousand miles away from the problem, and quote some philosophy.

The test is, when you're knee deep in a pile of shit, having your face beaten in by someone who wants to kill you, while the rest of the crowd laughs and insults you, can you say, "empty your cup", "the tree that bends will not break, "all is one," and "go with the flow"? How (if at all) does your philosophy hold up in day-to-day situations?

Street crowds is a good example. But why stop there? Why not talk about ALL aspects of life that can embody the tao?

In order to realistically and practically discuss the tao, I think that philosophy (theory) and living life (application) are important topics to discuss. Politics, as an area of life, is important. Can the tao manifest in politics? How does it do that? Are we at a point where it does? If not, how do we get to that point?

And as always, if you don't like a thread, you don't have to even open it.