Sarnyn

within and without

all communicates both ways

webbing ev'ry scale

webbing ev'ry scale

shows as above so below,

weaving at the loom.

jetsam left upstream

flotsam disaster's record

our intent or chance

Our Intent, or chance;

two names which claim fates accord,

gust of wind, and sword.

Old age, sickness, death.

there's lots to look forward to

so what's your problem?

"So What. Your problem

Is the old human problem."

Yeah but it's still mine!

now i fill this room

I need a stricter diet

if I want to leave.

If I want to leave

isn't wanting left waiting?

Old age, sickness, death.

Looks like he went to Benny Hinn's school of tai chi.

Hey all,

I'm just stopping in to say that I think that the doctrine of reincarnation in Buddhism should not be seen as some distant far off removed event, and actually an interpretation of reincarnation in this way would be counter to what we are taught in for instance the heart or the satipatthana suttas. Reincarnation should be viewed as a process that is constantly going on in the body, and mind states. It really doesn't make any sense to view it otherwise,as some far off removed event. Really, the concept of reincarnation could be viewed very similar to the concept of toaist cultivation. The concepts of reincarnation and cultivation (to me) seem very similar.

It is no philosophy of fear that says if a Taoist fails to cultivate, he will remain uncultivated. That is just the law of karma, or cause and effect. If a Buddhist fails to purify his mind, his mind will remain un-purified. This is not fire and brimstone theology, but one of natural consequences and choices. If I exercise and eat well, the health of my body will increase. I'm not playing off anybodies fear to tell them that if they eat poorly and live a sedentary lifestyle, the health of their body will suffer. That is simply natures law, cause and effect.

In other words, it doesn't make sense to equate the purification of the mind with the idea of fear, and then to turn around and advocate the philosophy of cultivation.

Now, a real critique I admit, is the one others have mentioned in this thread already, the critique of the concept of ego extinction, and the braking of the link in the chain of causation at the level of desire and craving. This is an area of debate that warrants investigation at the personal level. I won't add to the flames of that fire however, because it is still burning in my own mind.

Into my cake dream

comes a harsh reality:

'80 grams of fat'!

eighty grams of fat

lining my skulls cavity,

need a root canal!

Hi Sarnyn: The most beneficial process is to read The Field by, Lynn McTaggert, Google: Zero Point Field, and be diligent in reading as many hits as you can ( i've researched over 200 hits and the sources cited), and read Through the Western Gate, by Rick Barrett.. Rick has identified a physical system that links us to the Cosmos, the Connective Tissue System.. Google: Connective Tissue Tensegrity, you will be surprised.. i've researched over 200 hits and the sources cited on this one, too.. You come away feeling like you are more connected 'physically', than you have ever imagined.. Good Luck!!

 

Be well..

I think it's important to be vigorous here, because otherwise it looks a little bit like when quantum physics started gaining appeal to a certain market, and suddenly you had every new age guru trying to connect quantum theory with their ideas, and usually very badly. In my mind, this not only does a disservice to science, but it does a disservice to spiritualists and genuine seekers.

Greetings..

 

Science has yet to determine the residence of memory.. the 'brain' doesn't seem to be the residence of memory, there is some evidence that memory is resident in the whole body, and beyond.. there are several research programs working on the theory that memory, all collective memory, exists in the ZPF (Zero Point Field) and is accessed, first by resonance with the individual's 'energetic signature, and occasionally by modifying one's 'energetic signature' to access greater portions of the 'collective memory'.. it is those occasions where one accesses the 'collective memory' that sometimes are interpreted as 'past life' experiences.. where the experiencer might resonate with a past experience or personality, and upon evaluation of that 'memory' interpret it to be their specific 'past life' experience.. which, is not wholly untrue considering the interconnectedness of all things.. it's mostly about the focus the individual's awareness, their skill at 'energetics', and their understanding of programming..

 

The ability of hypnosis to adjust the frequency and coherence of a subject's energetic signature produces very clear, accurate, and verifiable recollections of situations that are unavailable to the subject's current energetic status.. the research into the ZPF as the residence of memory satisfies many of the questions previously unanswerable when attributing memory to a physical process..

 

A sterile but unbiased evaluation of meditation might reveal that it is a skill of modifying the experiencer's energetic signature, varied according to the desired result.. the benefit of this perspective is to minimize the effect of preferences and programming distorting a fundamental process into something 'mystical'..

 

Anyway, just some 'food for thought'..

 

Be well..

In any case I would love to read up on any serious studies being conducted into its association with memory, because I have a hard time visualizing a mechanism to explain that interaction.

Now it seems there are 2 trying to push their BS.

Actually Conceptional Meditation is taught as a form of meditation in Buddhism - see: http://www.amazon.com/Concentration-Meditation-Manual-Mind-Development/dp/1862042608

I'm not sure that you fully grasp the conversation that is going on right now, probably due to your word confusion.

Conceptual thinking, is the act of forming a concept, or an idea, based on a logical process of thinking, that requires the abstract visualization of logical concepts.

Concentration (in meditation) is the act of focusing with the will (right effort) on any given stimuli, be it a pictorial mental image,a sound, or some other physical sensation. Outside of meditation, we usually define concentration as fixing the will or effort to some task or some occurrence. It might require concentration to perform a particularly complex maneuver of conceptual thinking, but the two are not the same thing.

So when I said that meditation is usually not conceptual in nature (there are some exceptions of course, meditation on Koans, or on the Suttras can be very conceptual), that is not negating concentration as a tool in meditation. In fact, my contention, which I've already made clear in previous posts, is that concentration is ALWAYS a facet of meditation.

with metta

sarnyn

Well... Although I understand why you took all neural firing stimuli under the name of thought, I'd like to contradict you. Although thoughts and other firing processes work the same, they are not the same. The difference is that thoughts have a meaning for us, while others don't. Those which do not form a mental image or inner sound have little to do with our thinking. The control of vegetative functions in the brain is like this. The process by which your brain drives your heartbeat or digestion isn't really much of a thought, is it? So I think it's rather adequate to define thought as the stimuli of neurons which lead to a prolonged way of thinking that can involve awareness and free will, for thoughts also have the characteristic of changeability, but you (usually) can't change your vegetative functions by will. There are the same kinds of neurons (nerve cells) in your brain and in your spinal cord, and they all use the same firing sequence to forward stimuli. Yet, you wouldn't say that you think with your spinal cord, do you?

Here is a picture of brainwaves, and thier association with different states of consciousness,

Now we can see from this image, that the state of conscioussness that appears to have the most activity, and this has been verified with PET scans, are states of relaxation and meditation.

Here is an example,

Although not all the synaptic connections break up and synaptic firing doesn't end since many functions of the brain still work while not forming any conceptual thought, many other synapses which hold thoughts we used to think of literally loosen up while meditating. We can argue about whether focusing on your sensory organs' stimuli is a form of thinking or not. Probably this question could divide the global philosophical community in two. So let's correct and say that meditation is a mental state which is void of conceptual thinking. This also might need to be defined, for memory might be a form of concept. It might be possible that we can only experience things we already know - there is a theory for this. So we might have an associative thought for everything we currently sense. Whether this associative thought is conceptual or not, I don't know. But if we accept these as non-conceptual, then this definition should be adequate.

I can agree to that, because concentration definitely is not a kind of "conceptual thinking." However here again, is conceptual thinking the only activity that seems to strengthen the neural pathways? I don't think we can make that statement.

Also, while I can agree with you that meditation wouldn't be classified as a form of conceptual thinking, it also is not a state of passivity, and so should not be compared to a vegetative state where a neaural network is relaxed or loosened.

Thank you, and you're probably right. This happens when one has no possibility to learn from someone who is already on a high level in these things. I learned from books, which aren't really the best source to learn anything in relation to spirituality. Then I needed to wipe out lots of garbage I read, and figure out some things which weren't adequately explained - like what it means "don't think", or "focus on your breath". Focusing can be done in many ways, you can even involve physical tension in it... So figuring out how to do it properly, or how to meditate properly, is not so easy without a teacher. I still didn't reach anything unusual via my meditations, and I use my searching and creating theories to help step forward. So if I'm really wrong in something then I'd like to know that. For this, it's really nice of you that you took the time to respond, I appreciate it.

 

Btw, I know that there are many ways of meditation, even types in which a specific kind of thinking is necessary. I think it's obvious that in this topic I was talking about the kind of meditation which doesn't involve thinking...

Yes finding an accomplished teacher is very difficult, but then again, they say in the way of meditation, you are your own best teacher =-)

Btw I also wanted to say how I think this is a great subject of debate/conversation, I think too many religious/spiritual people accept their assumed benefits of their practices without being very rigorous in their thinking about them, and it does nothing but good to cause a person to examine why they practice what they practice.

Hmmm, One Hand Clapping, That's a Tough One.

by Sarnyn

I know the sound of one hand fapping,

I know the sound of ass cheeks clapping,

I'm embraased to say that one hot day

I learned the sound of a burro crapping,

I even know the anxious sound of an

impatient man whose tap tap tapping,

but as for the sound of one hand clapping,

i'd have to lose my mental trappings,

I'd have to run a desperate race

and find in my adversaries place

it's me who tripped and skid my face,

and as my fragile worlds collapsing,

I'll see it's me that I've been lapping!

there's none but me, no referee or band,

no single child, woman or man,

I'm all alone in wonderland!

suddenly awake I'll find that I've been napping

I'd find my mind free of wrappings,

and erupting from the empty stands,

I hear the sound of one hand clapping.

Fireflies everywhere,

and the fool on two legs asks,

what's enlightenment?..

"what's enlightenment?"

wondered the monk, deep in thought,

then tripped on a stump.

Then, tripped on a stump

neighed a donkey on a trott,

"is it all for naught?"

Do you mean I'm wrong? You are free to refute if you can.

To me the first thing that jumped out, was your description of meditation as a state of "non-thinking." This statement deserves some heavy examination. The first thing that we should examine, is the definition of the word "thought" that you are propagating here. Typically when we describe a thought, we mean some kind of mental image, sometimes visually based, but sometimes more auditory in nature. This is typically what people are describing when they say a "thought." But this is a very limited definition, as we will see in a moment.

Here is a picture of a neuron so everybody can get an idea about what we are talking,

If we are going to define a thought at the level of the synaptic activity of the mind, what we have to define a thought as, is anything which produces a synaptic fire. You have claimed that meditation is the act of stopping the mind from thinking, but this would not be true given our new more appropriate definition of the word "thought"

Meditators might be learning to focus on a physical sensation and thereby block auditory or symbolic visualization in the mind, but the meditator is not a vapid vegetable, rather a person engaged in meditation is very intensely experiencing the sensations in their own bodies, and often times the auditory sensations coming in from the surrounding environment, not to mention that some forms of meditation utilize visualizations or sounds as a focus. Sounds around us, the experience of the various sensations of breath, the sensation of the body and the bodies contact with its external reality are all sensations which produces neural activity, i.e. neural firing, and so for the purposes of the discussion here, must be included in our definition of a "thought"

In fact, since the meditator focuses with such intensity and regularity on the doors of the senses, here a kind of neural activity and a kind of neural "thought" or experience, the neural pathways are in fact heavily engaged and the pathways made more accessible and strengthened, so that meditators often experiences heightened senses, and heightened states of physical awareness due to the practice of firing their neurons in this way repeatedly and for sustained periods of time.

So your initial statement, that meditation is a state of nonthinking, first of all isn't even literally true, secondly it is irrelevant to your argument because a "thought" as we normally understand it to be, is not the only phenomenon which causes neural fire and neural activity.

So, in short, while your understanding of brain mechanics seems well enough, your understanding of what actually happenes in the practice of most forms of meditation seems uniformed, and possibly ill-informed.

with metta,

Sarnyn

it doesn't matter what the F i do to improve myself. My values, and my opinons, my personality is so different from others that I have no place here in society.

 

Because society is mean, and superficial and extreme materialist, such that, I couldn't even be able to improve myself, because I am not that type of person.

My teacher used to say:

 

"A specialist is someone who knows more and more about less and less until eventually they know everything about nothing"

"A generalist is someone who knows less and less about more and more until eventually they know nothing about everything"

Hey Fellow Bums -

I was curious about peoples opinions on specializing in certain skills or spiritual traditions or mastering one or the other -

Drawbacks for me of specialization include stagnation, obsession, narrow minded thinking etc -

However there seems to be something to be said for mastering something especially in regards to finances and the "real world"

 

Right Now I find myself wanting to do and learn a ton about everything - Not only spiritual traditions but it could be something like music -

You know I want to sing/ I want to dance / I want to play guitar -

And well learning one skill well definitely has implications for other skills -

But it also seems easy to get scattered as well

 

I am thinking like work on something intensely for 2 weeks or so at least but you know I am having so much fun learning about lots of stuff

My opinion is that it depends upon what kind of relationship you want to have with other people. Somebody who has a lot of knowledge spanning many disciplines, is somebody who makes a much better communicator, and facilitator of organized collaborative efforts. Compare this to the president verses the member of his cabinet. The president is much less knowledgeable about any specific specialty of his cabinet members, yet he is far more capable are connecting those various specialties together into a functioning system, because of his broader, generalized knowledge.

However, it takes true commitment and focus to penetrate the deepest levels of understanding of any given field of knowledge, and that specialized insight can then be related to others by way of simile and metaphor. It is sometimes said that the entire field of possible human understanding is contained in a single mustard seed.

So it just depends upon your predilection, and the kind of role you are comfortable playing in the world, and these are merely matters of personal expression.

So I would say, do what feels natural to you, in accordance with whatever goals have naturally arisen for you, that you feel compelled to allocate importance to.

What worries me thou is the general rush to exhalt the use and abuse of toxics, and connect them with taoism... and meditation

That is a legitimate concern, and I agree with you 100%

now I am going to make a horrible analogy. To me wanting to use a hallucinogen connected with the context of a meditation practice without already being strongly grounded in those practices is like showing up to karate class and wanting to free spar on the first day. You don't know enough for the free sparring to help you. You need to spend enough time learning the fundamentals and building your leg strength in the horse stance, so that you will have a firm system in place to refine through sparring.

Especially if you don't have a teacher. It would be like trying to learn Kung Fu by walking down the street and randomly attacking old women.

duplicate post

Can you account for masters and practicioners that use drugs and alcohol to serve for awareness enhancement

(other than shamanic tribes who use various herbs - their environment and lifestyle are very different from ours, so they are out of our discussion)...

I really am interested in hearing your opinion, thank you.

I would point toward the various schools of western occultism, such as the Chaos Magic of Peter Carol and the occult teachings and writings of his progenitor, Austin Osmond Spare for one, Aleister Crowley to name another, then I would consider such western figures who have adapted shamanistic practices of this kind to a western sensibility, such as Carlos Castaneda. Teachers such as Aldous Huxley and his doors of perception should not be ignored. I could list more (such as Bill Whitcomb), but I don't think that simply concocting a list of names will be persuasive for anybody reading, or yourself.

What I can say is that in my own experience, the measured, careful use of ritual hallucinogens has been personally useful. But I should add to that that before I ever utilized any hallucinogens I already had something like 10 years or so of meditation practice (specifically vippassana) under my belt and already had strong tools in place to help me negotiate those experiences in a way that has been constructive, not destructive to my practice. The reason I feel it has been useful, is by reinforcing the kind of first hand experiences gained through normal meditation, whereby the limitations of the sense organs is understood, and the way that these limitations shape and inform our personal reality is more assuredly integrated with our everyday consciousness. But again, I don't think that a personal anecdote like this will be especially persuasive either, and I should also express that such methods should not be entertained recklessly and without substantial preparation, in the form a an ongoing and significant meditation practice, specifically, and kind of practice like Vippassana, where the senses sensations of the body are the primarily trans-formative vehicle. Only a practice such as that (a meditative practice focusing on the senses), will prepare a person to successfully navigate the use of ritual hallucinogens without the assistance of a skillful shaman or mentor. It is also, not necessary, as the limitations of the senses and the implications that raises about objective reality can be ascertained from meditation. However, ritual hallucinogens can be a useful aid for adequately prepared individuals. But again, I don't suspect that my personal opinion here will be particularly persuasive.

My goal here isn't really to convince you that I am right, because I make my statements conditionally, as I wouldn't recommend these kinds of practices to 99% of people out there. My only goal here is to challenge the affirmation that such practices cannot be useful. Its a subtle distinction I know, but I think you feel where I am coming from.

with metta,

Sarnyn

Yes.

The body 'needs' things that got used to. And your habits are supposed to serve you, not the other way around.

However, the ingestion of wine, or other forms of alcohol, or of ritual hallucinogens for example don't have to be habitual simply because they are ingested. Further, and more importantly, the forgone conclusion that if they are habitual, that habit cannot be made to serve us as you suggest, seems to be a hasty one.

Meditation and toxic substances mutually exclude each other - coffee, cigarettes, alcohol, pot, heroin etc

Being a cultivator, in my mind, is a lot like being a gardener. What you choose to put in your garden, of course is a matter of a self expression.

leave only footprints

in the tub- no bars of soap

no backscratching rakes

no backscratching rakes

no orgasmic bliss fits to

preoccupy love

I'm not bad looking. And I'm not a bad person. Whatever that means.

 

I'm also against hookers. What difference does getting a hooker make compared to masturbation?

 

Not much I think.

 

There's no hope for me.

So you are not bad looking and you're not a bad person. So why then? Why are you isolated? What stops you from interacting with people in any meaningful way?

because I just never had any of that which I need in the first place.

 

I don't even know how to attain that which I do not know I am trying to achieve.

I'm not sure what you mean. What is stopping you from getting out and meeting people? What specifically are you insecure about?