Apech

Yep its the current which would do the damage since that's the actual flow of electrons. Voltage is comparable to pressure in a water system and current the amount of water flowing. Can anyone explain what it is supposed to do for you ... maybe its worth the risks (?)

The seekers whispered amongst each other - saying "we know a test when we see one". "No we will not leave," said their spokeman, " Lead us to real happiness oh wise one." "Happiness, schmappiness, well what can I do?" the Sage shrugged and raised his eyes to heaven.

First thing - buy her a nice handbag and purse - just shoving dollar bills in your bra makes you look a bit common. A nice warm thermal vest for the winter would also help.

Hey I want my 20 volts back!

Oh no!

nothing stays the same... nothing, nothing and nothing please give us a break!

Hi, Have you read Eva Wong's Cultivating Stillness. In this book the Earlier Heaven is described as follows: "The pa-k'ua of Earlier Heaven describes an ideal state of existence, when everything is in harmony and connected to the Tao." - pg xix intro In Chapter 12 "Stillness and Original Nature" it says this: "When yang reaches its zenith, yin is born. When you are absolutely still, everything is at rest. When yin reaches its zenith, yang is born. When pure yang emerges, your intuition will pierce through all that is impermanent. All meridians will flow toward the Origin, and the five virtues of Earlier Heaven will emerge." p. 76 I don't know if this helps with your question and I can't find a reference to Earlier Heaven as stillness but it seems from this book that yin and yang (or Heaven and Earth) are in a state of mutual harmony where they feed each other so to speak - giving energy and stillness together. Cheers. A.

After they sat down in a comfortable place one seeker raised his hand. "Yes?" asked the Sage. "Um ... if Bunny the librarian would like to join our quest would it be all right if she sat on my lap?" asked the young seeker. "Silly boy!" tutted the Sage.

Been thinking about straw dogs while the board was down: I would be disappointed if 'straw dog' turned out to be wrong as Taomeow suggests - but only because I think it is a very useful image. I think there is a tendency to think that it just means 'worthless' because of its nature as a sacrificial image. But if you think about it this is not quite right. If it is the case that the 'straw dogs' were made as substitutes for real, possibly human, sacrifices then they are not entirely worthless since they at least fulfil the purpose for which they are made. The time at which they become worthless is when they have been used. Then having been offered up, they are trampled under foot and forgotten, or so we are told. If they work as sacrifices, that is if they are acceptable to the gods, or thought to be so by those doing the offering then at that time they have value. I would compare this to holding in your hand a 100$ note say (I didn't say 100 GBP because you might think this is worthless anyway ha ha). The 100$ note is valuable because you can buy food, clothes or whatever with it, so if you look at it one way then it has face value. On the other hand if you look at it as an object - as a piece of paper with print on it it has almost no intrinsic value at all. The straw dog is a kind of unit of currency in the field of sacrifices - acceptable to both those who offer and the gods who are receiving the offering - but, like the 100$ note has no intrinsic value and is simply thrown away after use. Its worth is temporary and is not derived from its intrinsic nature but simply from the use to which it is put. If you read TTC 5 in this way then you could say that heaven and earth having created the 10k things because of their temporary functional value have no investment in those things once this value has been exhausted and they become disposable. There is no sentiment about these things they arise and then fall away and that's how it is. The sage deals with people in the same way. That is without sentiment. They come to him and he deals with them in a sage like manner. When they depart, they depart and the sage does not dwell on this or create any kind of attachment (sorry about the word with strong Buddhist connections I was trying to avoid it but it slipped in) to them as people. This makes sense to me - but I bow to Taomeow on the translation thing cos my knowledge of Chinese language is precisely zero (well perhaps 0.0001).

Phew! I had booked myself into rehab - the TB withdrawal symptoms were extreme - can't tell you how much I miss this place when its not there. Thanks be to Sean!

will he come back as...? an atheist who doubts all even his rebirth?

Grassicide If he had meant 'straw dogs' then would the text have been different?

every hair stands up! a vixen cries in the dark... we stop and listen.

I found quite an interesting commentary here : Friesian Tao which suggests that Ch. 5 is sometimes translated in what I would call a politically correct way because the message is so strong. I think that to say heaven and earth are 'not kind' or 'not benevolent' means that they do not bend to human sensibilities. If they did there would be no earth quakes in Haiti, no tsunamis or storms or anything that threatened human beings. The 10,000 things, the objects manifest by heaven and earth are straw dogs - that is objects sacrificed to a higher purpose ( that of heaven) - that is their value does not come from anything inherent in themselves - they are made of straw that is hollow and with little value. The sage in dealing with 'people' - that is beings who are fully identified with their egos does not pander to their selfish, greedy, jealous and petty concerns. He may teach them how to move on from this state which they find themselves in - and this teaching might be quite tough - but he does not lower himself through misplaced kindness to protect them from the affects of their own behaviour. Anyone who has met a good teacher will know that they are tough in this kind of way. Its a harsh message I suppose but that's the point!

Hi GiH, I don't disagree with what you are saying but I still think I am right in that people are using the term 'consciousness' differently and then arguing over definitions. The word 'object' is from L. obiectum - 'a thing thrown, hence put, before, hence a thing presented to one's attention ...' So the objects of consciousness are thrown or projected into view, so to speak. The 'ob' = before also means 'against' - so we can get the idea of objectors and 'to object' to something. So the objects of consciousness are those things thrown forward to be looked at. So to make consciousness an object would be nonsense, as would the idea that somehow the objective world comes first and consciousness is just a part of that.

Choose or be chosen... Pick your own nose or be picked So the choice is yours.

Interestingly, well interesting to me anyway, both words 'consciousness' and 'science' come from a root L. scire 'to know' which in turn comes from words which mean to 'cut through' hence decide. Science analytically cuts the world up to categorise and identify the objective world with the ultimate objective of being able to manipulate and control through technology (unless you are a pure scientist who might cut just to know). Science is successful because of its objectivity and its drive to break things down to their constituents to see how they work. But it is not great at reflexivity and it stumbles when it comes to the end points of the very big and the very small where the objective world gets a little elusive. Consciousness then means 'con' - together/with, cutting to know - ability. Consciousness is that which knows. That which observes the cutting process. Like when we say "there's a tree over there" we divide our environmental continuum into parts in order to identify their form and function. The tree is the object, the observed, and the consciousness is the observer. You can look for any form or function from the grossest, densest stone to the most subtle form of energy and identify it. Give it a name, state its function and form. These are the apparent objects which we observe but what you can't do is make consciousness into an object. The observer is not the observed ... save that you might say that they both arise from a non-dual unconditionality which is beyond both. Science has a problem with consciousness because it wants it to be an object. Or perhaps an effect arising from the interaction of objects ... like brain chemistry for instance or electrical nerve impulses. But this brings about all sorts of conceptual anomalies ... like how does something insensate become sentient through complexity and at what point does this happen. So although science can describe many processes in the body which relate to our awareness/consciousness it cannot explain how or why we are conscious in the first place (or at least I haven't read anything that successfully does this). There also seems to be a confusion in mystical schools between those who use the term consciousness as being synonymous with the non-dual source (for want of a better term) and those which address the skhanda of consciousness which is as an attribute of the perception of objects does not exist in any sense independent of those supposed objects. I think this is just a kind terminological dispute and nothing more.

as we rewire... plug me into the socket feels like doing KAP. (see Kap thread for details )

Maybe feel a little wired afterward? Bad joke - but its not my volt.

So he was putting mains 240 volts AC current through you?

For info. UK electricity is 240 V alternating current at 50 Hertz (cycles per second) ... so either he had a transformer or what he was doing sounds pretty dangerous to me.