Transmissions

[gendao]

There's different types of transmissions. The one I got from WLP was of the variety known as "daigong," not sure how to spell it in Chinese (only heard the word orally), I tried looking it up and the closest vocabulary meaning I found that might be right was "go-slow as a form of strike" (sic) or "lazy strike." In any event it was close enough to the subjective sensations. The purpose is not to strike you of course (though I've seen some people squirm in pain under daigong -- my own experience was, physically, intense pleasure in the kidneys and intense, gradually increasing pressure all over the rest of the body, like a steam roller...) The purpose is to get you... um, give you... um, don't know how to say it other than "to daigong you..." ...into the teacher's state -- the state he is in or rather, the entity he IS --

 

to get that projected into you systemically. Then... well, if you're ready to be the same kind of entity the teacher is, all of the transmission will be accepted by your system. If you are only partially ready, parts of you will "get it" and parts of you won't. If you're absolutely nowhere near ready, you won't get shit.

Ken talks about "daigong" here.

 

I'm guessing the Chinese characters may be 代(dai4)工(gong1)?

 

工(gong1) = "craftwork" or, far more loosely, "power"

This is the same "gong" in 工(gong1)夫(fu) or "accomplished ability."

Cultivation is typically called 练(lian4)工(gong1).

练(lian4) = practice. So, 练工 = practicing your craft.

 

Anyhow, 代(dai4) = replace

 

Sooo...代工 = replace craftwork...or basically, someone doing the work or substituting power for you

 

(Ken or YMWong can probably give better translations or explanations here, though...)

 

 

 

Sounds like an incredible experience to have WLP daigong for you though! I hope to experience that myself one day! Of course, I want to be as ready as I can first so I can fully absorb it. Were most people able to metabolize his high-powered transmission - or did results vary widely?

 

 

 

Phowa is also a Tibetan Buddhist form of transmission.

Edited May 10, 2010 by vortex

[Taomeow]

Thanks for the translation, Vortex! Yes, this probably makes more sense than what I've come up with.

 

Sounds like an incredible experience to have WLP daigong for you though! I hope to experience that myself one day! Of course, I want to be as ready as I can first so I can fully absorb it. Were most people able to metabolize his high-powered transmission - or did results vary widely?

 

It was actually funny... The general consensus was that daigong (which was performed daily for 10 days) "hits" people in the front rows stronger than those in the back, so at first it was decided between practitioners that people newer to WLP's system would sit in the back so as not to get overwhelmed, and seasoned practitioners, in the front, with mid-range folks in the middle. Since it was my first encounter, at first I modestly placed myself in the last row. Well, what do you know. WLP lectured in the front but then positioned himself somewhere in the back of the audience for daigong -- and hit me like a ton of bricks. So then it was decided to draw numbers (row and seat) before each class to randomize the process.

 

As for how well people metabolized the process -- that's hard for me to tell, since they all live in Russia or China, and the only person I'm in touch with currently is an instructor/assistant, which means in a class of his own of course. It was my impression that the participants were a motley crew -- some definitely "showing" the fruits of cultivation and others seemingly unaffected by the experience. There were a few people who come from a real-life martial/fighting background and of course one's cultivation goals will affect the outcome... There were also some ex-Chia sexual alchemists, tantrics, aficionados of taoism via their theoretical studies, health buffs... pretty much like everywhere else, everybody's mileage will vary.

[Trunk]

yeah, is shaktipat a type of "intelligent energy transmission"?

 

Also do you guys know of any good teachers in the chicago area?

 

At this point in my training i could use any of the above; forms, juice or clearage...lol... i just know i feel something going on, and it's VERY NICE!!

 

Consider the intensive offered streaming-over-the-internet in this thread (link). I know it kinda sounds hokey, but this guy is the bomb. We had good results last intensive w/ a Tao bum who was dubious as to whether it would work and considered himself not very sensitive to energetics.

 

- Trunk

[VCraigP]

What you (Ya Mu) and Pietro are arguing about is silly!

 

From what I gather Pietro has substantial training and experience in Qi arts under his belt.

 

Also a serious academic bent which leads him to quibble over definitions and imprecise (read-non scientific) use of science.

 

When my friends argue like this it reminds me of how much our interests are more congruent than not and it seems like splitting hairs. That is my view from outside your discussion.

 

It seems in the end Pietro takes issue with the inadequate construction of your experiments. I seriously doubt that he doesn't believe in what you do and also in the merit of trying to have some proof of the same for your own use if nothing else.

 

Maybe the two of you together could figure out a better protocol to demonstrate what you are doing. You could work together.

 

Also, you used the word "quantum" to describe a "non-linear" process. Use of this word and similar jargon belonging to Quantum physics seems to bring out the science police who feel this word has been usurped by Pop press and new age nonsense. I have seen this pattern before (not only from Pietro). To me it comes down to silly semantics.

As I said earlier, even if there are any quantum physicists here we are not having a discussion about quantum physics really. We are trying to use language which is inadequate to the task to talk about something many of us view as real in theory and in experience but which we cannot easily demonstrate in a tangible way.

 

You (Ya Mu)have been able to prove to yourself what you are achieving. We all agree I think that "proving" the existence or activity of Qi is problematic at best.

 

Pietro. Your academic viewpoint can be constructive. It can also be viewed as critical in the negative meaning of the term. I think you are trying to encourage precision here, but I don't think there are many here who would expect or recognize scientific precision in discussing these matters. Your insistence on it seems misplaced. Do you really think we shouldn't try to explore such things outside the scientific model as practitioners? I think you guys are talking past each other a bit here. I do think that Ya Mu is relaying his experience and attempts to validate in a clear way.

 

Whether or not instantaneous transmission is measureable using Ya Mu's described method seems unimportant to me. Perhaps it is significant to Pietro because we may be talking about a transmission which moves at the speed of light which IS measurable, but not by the means Ya Mu has described. Is that your issue Pietro? You think the idea of the experiment is good but that Ya Mu flubbed the science in the attempt to do it? Finally Ya Mu responded that the effect of setting of intention may even be seen affecting the patient BEFORE the actual transmission work, and is thus anecdotally demonstrably a non-linear event.

 

It would be nice to be able to PROVE any of this.

 

Why did I write all of that? I just want my two Brothers in the Tao to see their common ground because it is not a narrow strip but a broad gathering place along the road, along the way, the Tao.

 

Craig

[Birch]

Nice points VPCraig.

 

I'm very happy that "the scientific method" is being discussed as well as the appropriate use of terminology and applied language. "Quantum" is indeed ripped all over the the place (as is "alchemy") and I suspect scientific misuse is always going to be a "spiritual" beast to slay for some of us

 

Never mind bad translations in good faith ;-)

 

I agree it would be worth working together. Unless of course there would be an advantage to hiding behind "things you heathen can't understand" or "things I can't explain" - although that last one is probably very likely, so maybe just better to work together

[Mokona]

What is the WLP? I'm not hip on the lingo.

[Ya Mu]

What you (Ya Mu) and Pietro are arguing about is silly!

 

From what I gather Pietro has substantial training and experience in Qi arts under his belt.

 

Also a serious academic bent which leads him to quibble over definitions and imprecise (read-non scientific) use of science.

 

When my friends argue like this it reminds me of how much our interests are more congruent than not and it seems like splitting hairs. That is my view from outside your discussion.

 

It seems in the end Pietro takes issue with the inadequate construction of your experiments. I seriously doubt that he doesn't believe in what you do and also in the merit of trying to have some proof of the same for your own use if nothing else.

 

Maybe the two of you together could figure out a better protocol to demonstrate what you are doing. You could work together.

 

Also, you used the word "quantum" to describe a "non-linear" process. Use of this word and similar jargon belonging to Quantum physics seems to bring out the science police who feel this word has been usurped by Pop press and new age nonsense. I have seen this pattern before (not only from Pietro). To me it comes down to silly semantics.

As I said earlier, even if there are any quantum physicists here we are not having a discussion about quantum physics really. We are trying to use language which is inadequate to the task to talk about something many of us view as real in theory and in experience but which we cannot easily demonstrate in a tangible way.

 

You (Ya Mu)have been able to prove to yourself what you are achieving. We all agree I think that "proving" the existence or activity of Qi is problematic at best.

 

Pietro. Your academic viewpoint can be constructive. It can also be viewed as critical in the negative meaning of the term. I think you are trying to encourage precision here, but I don't think there are many here who would expect or recognize scientific precision in discussing these matters. Your insistence on it seems misplaced. Do you really think we shouldn't try to explore such things outside the scientific model as practitioners? I think you guys are talking past each other a bit here. I do think that Ya Mu is relaying his experience and attempts to validate in a clear way.

 

Whether or not instantaneous transmission is measureable using Ya Mu's described method seems unimportant to me. Perhaps it is significant to Pietro because we may be talking about a transmission which moves at the speed of light which IS measurable, but not by the means Ya Mu has described. Is that your issue Pietro? You think the idea of the experiment is good but that Ya Mu flubbed the science in the attempt to do it? Finally Ya Mu responded that the effect of setting of intention may even be seen affecting the patient BEFORE the actual transmission work, and is thus anecdotally demonstrably a non-linear event.

 

It would be nice to be able to PROVE any of this.

 

Why did I write all of that? I just want my two Brothers in the Tao to see their common ground because it is not a narrow strip but a broad gathering place along the road, along the way, the Tao.

 

Craig

The voice of reason - ah you take the fun out of it! Just kidding.

 

I think I know why Pietro objects to this. I left the scientific world for this very reason - he is absolutely perfectly correct according to the scientific method.

I just have had way too many experiences to believe too much in the scientific method. I am sure this method has served Pietro well.

This is the reason I stated that it was not a scientific measurement - just an example. And of course Pietro is correct in that the one measurement sequence I gave was entirely subjective and speed-of-light would explain as well as instantaneous in that particular instance. It is all the other things I have experienced that lead me to KNOW for myself that what I have been taught does transcend time & space. The system itself is actually taught non-linearly.

My personal understanding of quantum mechanics does lead to a tie-in. I cannot totally disassociate myself from that training nor my electromagnetics & acoustics training. But I just read that Steven Hawking implies that soon we may all totally change our view of quantum mechanics.

 

It's all cool and not personal in any way. In fact, I think if Pietro and I got together over a beer perhaps we would have a beneficial discussion of these things.

[Taomeow]

What is the WLP? I'm not hip on the lingo.

 

I'm ashamed to use "the lingo" myself. Just a local tradition.

 

WLP is Wang Liping.

[de_paradise]

Theres another dai 呆 which means stunned or tranced out, slow stupid. I dont think 代 carries any humour either.

 

发呆=being in daze. For example, when someone makes a reply of epistimology versus knowlege, I will 发呆.

 

 

Ken talks about "daigong" here.

 

I'm guessing the Chinese characters may be 代(dai4)工(gong1)?

 

工(gong1) = "craftwork" or, far more loosely, "power"

This is the same "gong" in 工(gong1)夫(fu) or "accomplished ability."

Cultivation is typically called 练(lian4)工(gong1).

练(lian4) = practice. So, 练工 = practicing your craft.

 

Anyhow, 代(dai4) = replace

 

Sooo...代工 = replace craftwork...or basically, someone doing the work or substituting power for you

 

(Ken or YMWong can probably give better translations or explanations here, though...)

 

 

 

Sounds like an incredible experience to have WLP daigong for you though! I hope to experience that myself one day! Of course, I want to be as ready as I can first so I can fully absorb it. Were most people able to metabolize his high-powered transmission - or did results vary widely?

 

 

 

Phowa is also a Tibetan Buddhist form of transmission.

[Taomeow]

Theres another dai 呆 which means stunned or tranced out, slow stupid. I dont think 代 carries any humour either.

 

发呆=being in daze. For example, when someone makes a reply of epistimology versus knowlege, I will 发呆.

Stunned or tranced out is close too! "Slow stupid..." ...hmm, yup, that too, next to master Wang I did feel that way, which is not my normal self-perception! And I don't mean slow-stupid in the mind -- no, not there... but when, e.g., he physically and visibly moved his liver from under a blow he invited someone to deliver (I had an argument with a surgeon here, by the way, who scientifically denied the possibility of this happening -- albeit I've seen it with my own eyes), I did feel as though my own liver is slow and stupid... I mean, "scientifically correct."

[~jK~]

 

and i've heard people say that you can get chi from a dvd or even reading the forum, although what this says about my notion of reality...

thanks yall...

MUCH LOVE

Hey - as long as you ain't got a Toyota - don't worry just drive it normal.

[Pietro]

What you (Ya Mu) and Pietro are arguing about is silly!

 

From what I gather Pietro has substantial training and experience in Qi arts under his belt.

 

Also a serious academic bent which leads him to quibble over definitions and imprecise (read-non scientific) use of science.

 

When my friends argue like this it reminds me of how much our interests are more congruent than not and it seems like splitting hairs. That is my view from outside your discussion.

 

It seems in the end Pietro takes issue with the inadequate construction of your experiments. I seriously doubt that he doesn't believe in what you do and also in the merit of trying to have some proof of the same for your own use if nothing else.

 

Maybe the two of you together could figure out a better protocol to demonstrate what you are doing. You could work together.

 

 

 

 

Craig, Ya Mu.

 

having worked with one foot in academia and one foot in meditation schools I had to investigate thoroughly the boundary between those two fields. Eventually I realised the difference between being real, and being measurable, and I tried to pass that on in my post. As I felt this was more important and subsumed any other discussion on my or Ya Mu credentials. If Ya Mu still feels I should answer his question I will surely do so.

 

 

You Craig raise a few questions in your post, and I would like to answer them.

 

Also, you used the word "quantum" to describe a "non-linear" process. Use of this word and similar jargon belonging to Quantum physics seems to bring out the science police who feel this word has been usurped by Pop press and new age nonsense. I have seen this pattern before (not only from Pietro). To me it comes down to silly semantics.

 

 

I disagree that getting the words right is silly semantics. Even if in Taoism we have a tradition of "the tao that can be said is not the eternal tao" we also have also a very long tradition of describing what can be described thoroughly. This is why Taoist meditation tradition could be reach the next generations so well.

 

To honour this thread that is hosting us, and which we should not forget it is about transmission, it is common for my latest teacher to transmit me a concept, then give it a name, then ask me to explain what was the transmission, to make sure it has fully arrived. Now I go back on track.

 

Yes, the word quantum has been used and abused all over the place. And so the word non-linear.

 

But of the problem is that sometimes the word non-linear is intended as non-linked-by-a-linear-relationship. Thus the kind of relations that fall under the field of chaotic system, and complex systems, and so on.

 

But other times it is intended as non following a continuous progression. And here people speak about linear time as opposed to cyclic time. So non-linear would mean not explicable using standard causality where x can have an implication over y only if even x happen before event y.

 

Both uses are ok, but are different. And the problem arises when people confuse them. Which happens very often when people speak about non-linear dynamic, for example, which has a precise scientific meaning in the first case, but people tend to assume that non linear dynamic means a dynamic in a universe where an effect can precede a cause. Or can be perceived as doing so.

 

 

 

 

Pietro. Your academic viewpoint can be constructive. It can also be viewed as critical in the negative meaning of the term.

 

 

It can in fact be misinterpreted. But only until one reads what I actually write as opposed as to reacting to what they think I mean.

 

 

 

I think you are trying to encourage precision here, but I don't think there are many here who would expect or recognize scientific precision in discussing these matters. Your insistence on it seems misplaced. Do you really think we shouldn't try to explore such things outside the scientific model as practitioners?

 

 

Hi Craig,

it's deeper than that. I don't think there is science as a separate action of human being. I see and experience science as common sense, summed with knowledge and with precise measurements. Anything that pertains to a field that can be measured and that has those three characteristics is scientific, but what does not have this scientific is not "unscientific". It's bogus.

 

 

 

It's like saying:

2+2=5

I say, no 2+2=4

and you reply, oh, but I was not speaking mathematically.

Sorry, 2+2 is mathematics. Saying 2+2=5 is not correct but no mathematic, is simply false.

 

I said that you need common sense, knowledge and measurements. We call this process science. Let's look what happens if you miss one of those three, and what kind of knowledge is then gathered. We have three cases:

 

1) If you make a claim based on good measurements, with good sense, but you ignore what has been done before you, you are making a good try, but your ignorance make it fail. No big deal, we are all ignorant to some extent. The aim is to be aware of our ignorance, expand what we know, and avoid making claims based on things we ignore. If someone now would explain that the sun went around the earth he would be falling in this category.

 

2) If you make a claim based on what knowledge, common sense, but you have no good measurements you are essentially making an hypothesis. It is ok as long as you call it a supposition. It is not ok if you call it a fact. Each time that you test your supposition with good measurement it will be more and more considered a fact (while being called a "theory"). And every scientist will defend it unless they are presented with alternative explanations backed up by measurements that the first theory could not explain.

 

3) If you make a claim based on knowledge, and good measures, but no common sense you are essentially not being reasonable, being illogical, not using Occam's razor to propose the simplest solution, in what you are claiming. This is the only case in which you can sometimes make "unscientific but plausible claims".

 

 

Now the claims that were flaying around over here were supposedly consequences of measurements, as such they fell under the domain of scientific investigation (remember how 2+2 is mathematics). So where they reasonable grounded claims?

Well, quantum theory is a very complex field, I have a very limited understanding of it (having only followed a course at the uni 2 decades ago). It looks to me that people here have an even lower understanding of the field, so this raises in me all sort of warning bells.

I will not comment over the common sense, for the sake of peace for the forum.

But what really was misplaced was the way measurements were taken.

 

 

 

 

With no measures the maximum that we can aim for is to have an hypothesis. Which is what I said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether or not instantaneous transmission is measureable using Ya Mu's described method seems unimportant to me. Perhaps it is significant to Pietro because we may be talking about a transmission which moves at the speed of light which IS measurable, but not by the means Ya Mu has described. Is that your issue Pietro? You think the idea of the experiment is good but that Ya Mu flubbed the science in the attempt to do it?

 

 

I think that Ya Mu has had interesting experiences that point to something that can exist and that can potentially be measured. I think that until we cannot measure it, any claim about its measures (different from very fast) are empty talk. As are any claim that descend from the previous claims.

 

 

 

 

Finally Ya Mu responded that the effect of setting of intention may even be seen affecting the patient BEFORE the actual transmission work, and is thus anecdotally demonstrably a non-linear event.

 

 

Makes you wonder what would have happened if the doctor seeing the patient has suddenly healed refused to operate.

 

[mjjbecker]

Not gonna let me get away with an intentional dig at science and religion, are you. :lol:

 

You make a valid point. But I think both are inherently based on dogmatic thinking so it is at the core of both as they exist today; not that this should be the case. IMO science and religion COULD be non-dogmatic if both as they exist today did not rely on human brain based controlling rules.

I am one who actually believes (right or wrong) that science will change and evolve to acknowledge Spirit and energy healing. Right now it just can't get past the NEED to utilize instrumentation to measure. So this change will occur IMO when human consciousness evolves/recognizes the inherent energetic connections of all things on the non-linear level - perhaps at this point then instrumentation will be "invented" to measure this.

 

I think we pretty much agree on most things.

 

By all means have a dig at those who justify it (though they are usually the least likely to take on board useful advice). I always find that generalisations are an unwise-and limited-viewpoint though. It is also dogmatic behaviour in action. I'd rather see each person and situation for what it is.

 

As for the need to control and dominate, that is the primate in us, rather than the rational. Think of it as the 'angry chimp' syndrome. We get to observe a lot of it around here at times.

[Ya Mu]

...

Makes you wonder what would have happened if the doctor seeing the patient has suddenly healed refused to operate.

 

Pietro,

Your logic is impeccable. Very well explained. But as applied to this thread it is based on a false premise. And that is the fact that you continually attack the measurement method and say all my theories and claims were based on that. Nowhere did I state this. The context of my posting the measurements was simply as an example to the previous poster. I think the measurements do show something; the repeatability of felt qi projection that arrives from across the world with no perceived time delay. I didn't say it proved anything. What I said was the sum total of my experiences lead me to an explanation that is only the best explanation I can give as it absolutely can't describe the event itself. I haven't seen a better explanation.

I am comfortable that these events do not fit the model of Newtonian physics.

 

I really don't wish to beat a dead horse and I think we both have had our say so why don't we switch to the last statement you made that I posted above, for I find this very interesting. And I apologize to the OP as this type of qi projection differs from what you originally asked about transmissions but fits the flow of the thread.

 

IN fact, I know a surgeon who I taught that projects qi to the IV solution before surgery. I will have to ask him have they ever aborted. As for my efforts when I have seen this not-explained-to-me-by-Newtonian physics phenomena, I always have been amazed and simply followed it up as in clearing of channels etc.

 

IN the case of the surgeon, what do YOU (every you - not just Pietro) think will happen? I think it depends on how much balls the surgeon has.

[Pietro]

IN the case of the surgeon, what do YOU (every you - not just Pietro) think will happen? I think it depends on how much balls the surgeon has.

 

I mentioned a doctor as a figure of speech. Let's extend this question to any figure...

I have my intuition about what would happen, but I will not post it now.

Too much Pietro a day can get boring

[Birch]

And I thought I was getting somewhere with my understanding of transmissions. Bummer. I'll have to start making stuff up again to appease my desire for explanations.

 

I like TaoMeow's take on the WLP transmission and why the receiver ought to be up to some kind of speed before they do get it, or risk pain or not getting it.

 

I like Apech's take on the resonance idea

 

I'd like Trunk to throw in about Mark from Hardlight

 

I'd like Shaktimama to throw in about KAP (because I know she does it :-))

 

Of course, that might not happen (yet) but I hope you would consider my request, in the spirit of "asking nicely" and open knowledge.

[Ya Mu]

...

I like TaoMeow's take on the WLP transmission and why the receiver ought to be up to some kind of speed before they do get it, or risk pain or not getting it.

..

I'd like to re-visit a couple of points Taomeow makes as this is exactly what is taught in my system as well.

... The amount of transmission you will actually get out of the experience depends on who you are. I.e. the teacher might project the same daigong at the whole group but reactions of the group members will be dramatically different.

 

Then, whatever you get, you can and should develop yourself, via cultivation practices you've been taught, following the system the teacher who gave you the transmission uses himself. Having received daigong will streamline the process and help you. But having received it and then not proceeding to practice will nullify it.

 

What I have found Kate is "who you are" has as much to do with who you really are and not just how much practice experience you have. In other words, what is at your core is not just experience in meditation, qigong, MA, etc. I have seen folks with many years of experience in other systems have a great deal of problems and stuff to work through and don't "get it" nearly as well as some of the complete beginners. Everyone is different. I am just saying don't think you have to have "x" amount of (meditation, qigong, etc) experience before the "transmission" from a teacher who actually can do this will be effective for you.

 

And to reinforce/add to the last part of Taomeow's statement. I have had many students who "got it" but lost it because they had to go home and think about it (or practice another form) rather than practicing what was taught while the teacher is giving the "transmission". Use it or lose it has proven to be absolutely true with my students (and students of other teachers who do this that I have observed).

[sifusufi]

 

Too much Pietro a day can get boring

 

Is this Pietro the Palo

[3bob]

Ya Mu,

 

A tangent spun off your post that may go further than the truism you mention of, "use it or lose it".

 

"If you do not bring forward what is

within you, what is within you will

destroy you. But if you bring forward

what is within you, what is within you

will heal and save you".

 

- The Gospel of Thomas

Edited May 11, 2010 by 3bob

[Cloudhand]

Is this Pietro the Palo

 

 

Pietro is a smart dude but like Bruce Lee said; from the Tao of Jeet Kune Do you can be intellectually bound and not free to move or flow in all directions mind or body. this is not knock or put down just a observation. Peace Cloudhand

[sifusufi]

Ya Mu,

 

 

 

"If you do not bring forward what is

within you, what is within you will

destroy you. But if you bring forward

what is within you, what is within you

will heal and save you".

 

 

Beautiful

I believe this may have inspired Joe Satriani

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

 

or Steve Vai! Steve fasted and prayed three days for this one take Please watch, please.

Sorry I can't watch this without weeping (Jesus wept)

 

If these don't work...

Jesus saves (Slayer)

[3bob]

Beautiful

I believe this may have inspired Joe Satriani

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

 

or Steve Vai! Steve fasted and prayed three days for this one take Please watch, please.

Sorry I can't watch this without weeping (Jesus wept)

 

If these don't work...

Jesus saves (Slayer)

 

The natural flowing sound of the excellent base beat sets up the foundation for the flying and expressive rifts... I'm not much of a rocker but if I was I could well hear those songs relating to the quote I submitted. Thanks for sharing man.

 

Om

[sifusufi]

The natural flowing sound of the excellent base beat sets up the foundation for the flying and expressive rifts... I'm not much of a rocker but if I was I could well hear those songs relating to the quote I submitted. Thanks for sharing man.

 

Om

 

3bob,

Thank you for your kind words, well phrased indeed.

 

I always get a good vibe when ...listening occurs.

 

Some stuff just gives it to me emotionally, tears can be very cleansing

 

Peace,

Bobby

Edited May 12, 2010 by sifusufi

[Cueball]

[Ya Mu]

Ya Mu,

 

A tangent spun off your post that may go further than the truism you mention of, "use it or lose it".

 

"If you do not bring forward what is

within you, what is within you will

destroy you. But if you bring forward

what is within you, what is within you

will heal and save you".

 

- The Gospel of Thomas

Nice.

I think fear is the main reason most don't "bring it forward". And it can destroy because it is the part of us that is real; eventually it has to destroy the illusory you created by the brain/mind.