Apech

56 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

If they are unwanted , one releases them .  from the depths , then they 'rise up' to the conscious mind .

 

if they are unwanted, one releases them and watches them continue to 'rise' , up and to whatever source one gives one's life experience to *  . If they are wanted , we hold on to them  and dont offer them up ,  we hold them within our consciousness and have them effect and interact with  that .  - but when things dont 'flow' they become 'stagnant '  .

 

* To experience the fullness of   ' life's  experiences'  both  'good ' or 'bad'  are required by 'spirit'.

Ok but .... this is to me slightly theoretical.  

'Want' in itself suggests lack.  I want something because I don't have it.  If the emotions are unwanted then why did we hold on to them anyway?  They are stored up certainly and mostly they are unassimilated.  They are energy that we cannot digest.  Non food - which can become food if prepared in the right way.  

In a funny way - a deep way - we do want those emotions.  They affirm our importance.  Our justified anger for instance.  Doesn't that mean we want them in the first place but later maybe we regret wanting and holding them?

Is it bad to feel anger?  Say we sit for five minutes and start sobbing.  Is that bad or good?  Is it what we intended anyway? why did we start sitting in the first place?  It's all very strange and submarine.

13 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

bump

 

Thanks bumper

1 minute ago, Maddie said:

 

Like I just stated this is due to increased awareness of one's own Shankara's. 

ohhh your sooooo Buddhist

6 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I think its fine to call them unwanted. One can then make the fact that they are "unwanted" and object of mindfulness and obtain insight into aversion. 

I have an old thread called ‘emotions are the path’ -

3 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

 

meditation unlocking/freeing  unwanted emotions like anger and sadness

i have a problem with ‘unwanted’ as a descriptor

21 minutes ago, Unota said:

I'd like to see that thread. I'm curious about that too. I've never had anything happen like that, until recently, when I went to meditate and started just... uncontrollably crying. Tears just started streaming down my face out of nowhere. I think that I've been stockpiling a lot of grief, lately, haha... I felt a lot better afterwards.

what shall we call this thread?

3 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

 

memory of a younger me screaming after 5 minutes of sitting pops up

well done on lasting five minutes!

8 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

One of the girls that works at the front desk decided she was going to teach herself meditation recently. Yesterday I asked her how that was going and she said that she noticed a lot of anger coming up and didn't expect that since she thought meditation was about relaxing. I just said that it's not like the posters make it seem like. 

a subject that deserves its own thread

3 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

Exactly! You don't ever hear about this anywhere. And then if something does come up the most common thing you're told is oh that's part of the process just push through it. Unfortunately I had to learn about this the hard way.

There’s a lot of bad teaching and misapplication of meditation out there.  Very few people even know what it is really.

Mirror, mirror on the wall,

Who is the wisest DaoBum of them all?

Apech, Apech you little shit,

Whoever it is, you're not it.

Mirror, mirror, in the trash,

With a brick I did thee smash,

What's the point of your reply,

You could've at least try to lie.

It's spiritual.

18 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

Sex is scary.  It's natural, fluid, nonlinear, essentially feminine (even for men), and a clear threat to our small, egoic selves.  Many try to get around the fear by compartmentalizing themselves, having sex with bodies only, as if our physical selves could be separated from emotion and spirit.  Many try to have sex like square pegs in an erotic world that is curving, spiraling, and infinitely oceanic.  Compartmentalized sex is like a Snickers Bar.  It can taste good in a superfical way but some part of us knows we aren't really eating food, aren't really receiving nourishment.  Although we might strain to hear it, every sexual encounter evokes the echo of the divine.  

 

Because sex is scary, many try to tame it with rules.  Don't ejaculate (for males), and so on.  Is there something to the idea that sexual energy can be harnessed for spiritual purposes?  I don't claim to know for sure but this seems possible to me.  But if celibacy is beneficial to some, surely it has to emerge naturally, organically, out of an adept's longterm practice.  It's not something that can be imposed in a top down way because we're scared of the sometimes out-of-control feminine power of our own bodies.

Great wisdom Brother Luke.

Hope all is ok with him.

2 hours ago, kakapo said:

 

Summer,

 

I belong to a group of people which study a particular practice, many in our group have been members of this forum since the days of Ron Jeremy circa 2004

 

We have seen things get to the point of being absolutely psychotic here on the forum. 

 

In comparison the current vibe of the forum is very mild, and actually seems to be improving.

 

Lot's of progress has been made to stop the trolls, and most members of my group are overjoyed we no longer have to listen to how awful, stupid and terrible we are on a daily basis.

 

Stick around for a while and you'll see this place is definitely improving from what it used to be.

How very mysterious!

17 minutes ago, Summer said:

Can you feel it?

 

I don't know if its an ultra modern SIDDHI GET! I've unlocked (or if it even exists) but recently I noted that digital places have energy too. Just like buildings. You can feel a house where a lot of people argue, even when empty. Its walls are pointy. Same with internet it seems. It tells you who them mood is without even reading contents. You can feel it.

Here is grumpy like cat that doesn't want to be bothered. Maybe that is the perfect image of high development though because cats is very spiritual animal because they live partly on astral plane.

 

 

Not very friendly though which makes wonder "Why speak if you don't want to talk?". That is not very spiritually developed, no?

.

Grumpy?  Us!!!!! Hurrrrrrrmph!

Zen

28 minutes ago, Pak_Satrio said:

Testing if ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ works

I’m convinced.

13 hours ago, Mark Foote said:

 

... and by a sleep to say we end
The heartache, and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to. ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d....

To sleep—perchance to dream. Ay, there’s the rub!
For what if, in that dream, the very chair we sit upon in sleep, falleth over...

(Hamlet, appended)

 

 

I could be prisoned in a garden shed yet count myself the king of infinite space.

7 hours ago, kakapo said:

 

Please create a new thread, and I will be happy to explore this topic with you.

 

Trying to do so here will drag this thread off topic.

Is there a new thread?

7 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

The knowledge of their direct environment, places of proximity to where they were, was probably superior as they needed to be very mindful of it, they had to be, for survival. E.g. modern people do not know animal patterns on a mountain 10mins from their home, they could had known them but it would require a completely different lifestyle to the modern one.

 

In terms of overall knowledge on plants, animals etc, they couldn't had known more though, they lacked the tools we have.

 

Their knowledge of stars could only had been inferior, they simply did not have the technological means to observe them like we do. We've actually been to the moon, they never did.

 

There's an interesting documentary on the Kogi where the tribal sage is able to distinguish stars from far away galaxies, which was impressive but nonetheless, there's no comparison to how much more we know about the universe.

I think you are missing the point about the nature of valid knowledge.

1 hour ago, Maddie said:

 

1. You say that modern humanity understands world better than our ancestors. Yes

 

2. Secondly you say they were "hunter-gathers" Yes

 

3. Yes, probably they were... but 50 000+ years ago Yes and more recently than that as well.

 

4. a. I know you can bring many sources on that... Good, I'm excited to see them.

     b. but you should be aware who writes these "scientific" works, Scientists do. 

 

‘modern humanity’ understands very little if you mean people generally- they are mostly ignorant of even basic things.

the knowledge of hunter gatherers of their world, plants, the behavior of animals , the weather, the seasons and the relationship to the celestial motions of sun, moon , and stars was extensive and in some ways superior to ours.

scientists tend to work narrowly in their own silos and see little of the big picture - even the wisest of ‘em lacks true insight.

34 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

So starting from whether direct pointing from teacher to student is a method used in Daoism,

We went to whether the English terminology used in Zen is a good translation from Chinese,

then to Google Roshi's told someone on direct pointing from teacher to student,

and now to earth-centric systems.

 

It keeps getting better and better 😁

 

 

It's rude to point.

5 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Frame of reference yes. Orbital position no.

True orbital position maybe or most certainly is unknown and so to say the earth is central is as true as any other position.

the earth is square , heaven is round.

On 15/01/2024 at 11:01 AM, Maddie said:

 

We understand that the Earth rotates around the Sun and the sun around the center of the Galaxy now and we didn't used to, so yes.

In a relativistic universe any point can be the center of the frame of reference.

35 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

I wonder,

 

he describes how "water" goes up the spine and then turns a corner and fills up a flat disc shaped cushion  at the height of the nipples, and then he wonders whether that was a kundalinilike occurrence. 

 

 

I remember well how I experienced  the opening of the MCO as cool water, rushing through the channels as water filling up a dry riverbed. I've always thought that kundalini energy is hot energy, not cool and water like. 

 

anybody more information on this?

In my humble opinion k is hot and a different magnitude to cool flushing energy.  Both are good though.