Apech

It takes a long time to paddle across the Atlantic.

I read Hancock's 'America Before' which was quite a good read. It is part ancient history, part travelogue, part rather wild theorising. What is clear is that there are anomalies in the current understanding to history of the Americas/ human history in general which need to be explained. And when they are explained the standard model of human history will probably need a major reevaluation. Things that seem clear to me at any rate so far from reading what is available: 1. Human (and def. hominid) history is a lot older than previously thought. 2. Ancient humans far from being ignorant savages were capable of sophisticated thought, trade, stone working and some form of social organisation. 3. More advanced stone working techniques seem to be universal at earlier times - followed by decline into historical period. 4. The similarities of the stone working across the world may suggest very early sea-going maritime culture. 5. The evidence for a Younger Dryas catastrophe (comet impact) seems to be growing and becoming more certain. 6. There are a number of anomalies in human history which need to be explained - e.g. Australasian DNA in Amazon tribes. 7. American history seems particularly obscured - possibly as result of catastrophic devastation. As per Atlantis as an 'advanced' civilisation - apart from tubular drills, circular saws and some kind of liquid polishing techniques in ancient stones, where is the evidence for advanced technology?

You really don't want to know

And short lived at the most enjoyable moment?

Say you are planning a birthday party. The yang phase would be the planning and build up to the great day - putting energy in to make arrangements, buy presents, inviting guests and so on. The day itself is the most energetic (old yang) but short lived and followed by the recovery period which would be the yin phase. Not a great example but the best I can do off the top of my head

My approach to understanding moving lines is from the basis that by combining yin and yang in pairs you get four types of lines. Old yang (yang/yang), old yin (yin/yin), young yang (yang/yin) and young yin (yin/ yang). If you take an example from nature like the phases of the moon. The full moon would be represented by the old yang - moving line, and the new moon by the old yin - moving line. Realistically an full moon last just one day or at a stretch three days to notice the difference, same with the new moon where you get an old crescent, a dark moon and then a new crescent - so that's six days out of the 28 day lunar cycle. This leaves 22 days divided into 11 waxing and 11 waning. So the moving old yin and old yang lines refer to a short lived maximum or minimum phase - while the young lines refer to a more apparently stable period of growing light or decreasing light. However it is a fact that changing is occurring all through the cycle - it is just not as apparent because the at the maximum and minimum there is a reversal while in the waxing an waning phases it is very similar day on day for 11 days. Another example would be a sine wave with very obvious peaks and troughs - in between a slow climb up and a slow climb down. Although the rate of change is actually constant - the apparent change at the extremes is much more obvious. Hope this makes sense

Hi, That was very interesting. One thing I was not sure about though, was that you seem to take the 'imbalance' of the moving line as a negative thing. But the fullness of the maximum or minimum state, like a full moon or the summer solstice, while it does indicate there is only one way to go i.e. decrease ... surely this is still part of the natural flow of things and not necessarily negative. ???

I'm a gnu man since I became a wildebeast.

Of course you are ...

I'm an animal?

Rebel yell

noodles

Thanks! I have had this book for a while but didn't round to reading it properly.

Sprite

Live as a gnu.

Feal

Forgive

conscious (adj.) c. 1600, "knowing, privy to" (poetic), from Latin conscius "knowing, aware," from conscire "be (mutually) aware," from assimilated form of com "with," or "thoroughly" (see con-) + scire "to know" (see science). The Latin word probably is a loan-translation of Greek syneidos. science (n.) mid-14c., "what is known, knowledge (of something) acquired by study; information;" also "assurance of knowledge, certitude, certainty," from Old French science "knowledge, learning, application; corpus of human knowledge" (12c.), from Latin scientia "knowledge, a knowing; expertness," from sciens(genitive scientis) "intelligent, skilled," present participle of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE root *skei- "to cut, split" (source also of Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Gothic skaidan, Old English sceadan "to divide, separate").

Consciousness divides to know - if your 'subject' is consciousness then I agree.

I think it arises from the subject/object division which is a consequence of vijnana (as per the 12 steps of dependent origination).

Hi, You can distinguish but ultimately it is the union of these aspects which is the ultimate reality. I can paint a picture of what I mean but bear in mind I am just an ordinary practitioner with an ordinary understanding. Mind is often described as 'sky-like' by which they mean it is open, expansive, pure, clear and without a form of its own. But the metaphor is limited because the sky is a physical appearance without qualities, while the Mind is self-luminous or full of awareness. By self-luminous I don't mean to suggest a 'self' but in the reflexive sense - Mind has the inherent quality of awareness. The image is a sun-lit sky. You could say it's an infinite field of consciousness or awareness. But even this is not enough because like space (of which the sky is an example) itself it is not just a field of light but also has a dark aspect - but by dark I don't mean obscured like shadow I mean it is an infinite expanse which is full of intent (or if you prefer power). Because of this infinite potential it is continually and endlessly in motion - and this motion is energy. The motion itself has two aspects - translational and rotational. The translational motion of mind is like the activity of the infinite light field i.e. awareness spreading in all directions simultaneously - while rotational motion causes stable zones of particular stress within the infinite which manifest as content, things, thoughts, beings of all kinds. These are nothing other than modalities of the infinite made finite in a particular place, for a certain time with a set a qualities derived from the infinite but expressing themselves in specific ways - a tree, a person, a universe and so on. They are 'empty' because in essence they have no self-being other than modalities of the infinite - they are temporary, dependent and made of a collection of qualities derived from the infinite. If we look from the perspective of our individual existence then the infinite appears to have two different aspects - that of awareness and that of intent/energy - but that is really our dualistic way of thinking and ultimately if we achieve enlightenment we will realise that awareness/consciousness/sentience and energy/intent/power while not being the same are not different - i.e. non-dual resolved in the infinite/dharmakaya/buddha-naure - call it what you will. These words are my own and not strictly Buddha-dharma so beware they are inexact ad probably flawed but its the best I can. There's a lot of literature on these subjects - if I can think of anything helpful I'll link to it

Mushin or no-mind is I think the basic position of Zen.

But energy is empty. But you are right about most Buddhist schools.

I think this is the point - by saying things are empty does not mean they don't exist in the way we might mean. Since after all I'm empty and so are you - so gods, spirits, ghosts and so on may be empty but at the same time as real as you or me.

the words translated as 'mind' are usually citta, manas or vijnana. Citta was originally a Samkhya term which referred to mind-stuff i.e. the subtle aspect of prakriti (substance) in which thoughts, feelings and so on occur. Later both Buddhism and Yoga (Patanjali) took this term and expanded its application to mean the universal sentient energy which encompasses everything. Specifically it was thought of as that which takes on form and discharges it. This leads to statement like all is mind and so on - as in the Buddhism tradition of citta-matra (Mind-only). Manas again in Samkhya philosophy was the kind of accounting faculty of consciousness which sits behind the six sense bases and receives and interprets perceptions. Although in Samkhya there was a separate aspect of mind called ahamkara which imputes 'self' onto perceptual activity in Buddhism it is the manas which does this. Vijnana is usually translated as consciousness - and literally means jnana = knowing and vi = for, or towards or sometimes 'intense' knowing. Sometimes it is used generally for consciousness in way we might use it - but more often it is specifically that which creates the subject/object division and creates the situation where the knower knows the known - subject/object conditional mind. Citta is probably the best fit for what we might think of as a field of consciousness which still 'is' without the subject /object division - but you will see all three used in this way.