Birch

Steve, i don't know how "it" happens but i read a nice thing about it being an accident and that practice was intended to make one more "accident-prone" :-) I also think though that if you compare certain "aspects" of certain practices with certain life conditions (that i figure might also be on the increase in "contemporary life") then you might find that your own life made you accident prone :-) I personally find the former pretty funny because it means to me that consciousness can't be surpressed by fiddling with people's social conditions :-)

Hmm, using... Mind tricks:-) But hard to do in any other than an oblique way. And I'm dabbling with the Yuen Method which i'm currently at pains to dissect properly. It reminds me of a jigsaw puzzle, highly symbolic, totally irrational. Oblique though:-) Edit: reminds me of homeopathy or (again) a sort of a tantric melting into the gaps. I will also say that "karma" in this case ought not to be taken literally but as a way of getting at things in an oblique way, which one would obviously protest against if it was said outright to one's face.

I was reading some articles on guru-talk this morning. It's like a gossip column for spiritual seekers. The Kunlun and 5ET stuff on here is small potatoes. I have a personal problem with "The Secret" and many other "spiritual" books and media. But it would take me a while to get into it. Is the question about taking responsibility? My thought is that unless i was an expert on sweat lodges and putting people in them and knew what signs to look for in people who are in overheating danger i wouldn't run one. IMO being interested in all things "spiritual" doesn't make me an expert on human physiology.

Oh. Many things. I have no idea about the natural course of the universe. I mean, where else is anyone? The 'karma yoga' thing sounds interesting. Sometimes I get a feeling that if I only embraced everything into whatever form it had then all would be well. It's vaguely tantric in - well, in embrace. Not same as bakti (sp?) which is to maintain distance from everything until you "get it" that way. Alright to explain another way, it's like the 'taiji pole' between yin and yang was embraced to the point where there is none but, well, obviously the yin and yang is still there. I mean, until the last conscious "something" disappears (it ain't gonna be me :-) I like the somethings:-) and I wouldn't have bothered with them otherwise. Sorry, sometimes I slip into grandiosity :-p do you see how this gets weird very fast? )

Hmm. I dunno. I suppose it does remind of that Polish (I think) guy's idea of 'flow' . Maybe it would be helpful if we were reminded of 'wu' and 'wei' respectively? As far as I can recall, 'wu' is 'unmanifest' and 'wei' is 'external', so that would make 'literally' 'wu-wei' equal the 'external unmanifest' but you can tell I'm grabbing at straws here :-). Scholars, please jump in to correct? I have an inkling that I've got it backwards :-) "It furthers one to have somewhere to go" - I read that somewhere :-)

Aaron, it tastes much better if you rinse water through it before cooking. I used to think that it tasted like cr$p too until I got that hint. The texture is fun

I haven't tried it. Too much of a - er, a something. Anyway, IMO/IME this eating idea is up there with the breathing idea. Does the life come from the food? Does the life come from breathing? What happens if you stop doing either of those very much? What happens if you do lots of them all the time? That's some hardcore experimentation! I got to a certain point in practice where I figured 'huh, why bother breathing at all?'. But I couldn't really tell what the best thing was (hint, possibly not that thought) so I gave the breathing (mostly) back to my body. I'm still concerned I'm not 'doing it right' but hopefully things will have balanced out... Anyway, from what I've read in various places, current theories (and I can't go google them:-) discuss whether 'nutrients' are 'in' the food. Or are created by the human system. I don't know where they're at now (the theories). The stuff I read mentioned that researchers who were surprised to see no 'vitamin C' deficiencies in Northern populations who only seemed to eat meat had to conclude that that "either" meat contained vitamin C or that the people's bodies were able to metabolize it from the meat. Same with Masaai who only eat cattle. But who knows?? Who even knows what 'vitamin C' is? I don't.

I was thinking about this thread again and I wanted to throw in a couple of things that might seem unrelated but whatever. One is the idea of 'adaptive limitations" - I couldn't find a name for it so I called it that. Apparently economists make terms up all the time:-) I'm not one (an economist) so please bear with :-) So basically, this idea suggest that saying that an 'all or nothing' condition exists is deceptive. A condition (I'll cherry pick the example of "regulations") could be not at all 'limiting' for certain business types and markets and very limiting for others. The point I want to make is that the regulating condition only becomes effective and limiting under certain conditions. It could be argued 'for' by those who are in favorable (to them) conditions and 'against' by people who are in unfavorable (to them) conditions. I'm making a reach to suggest that several of this type of conditions only kick in at specific boundaries (how to define them will be complicated, but the idea could probably be tested) ----- The other thing was about how old this 'situation' is. I can't really define the situation but I saw a sort of a pattern when I considered stories and mythologies of 'better times'. It suddenly occurred to me that 'better times' was a total fabrication and that pretty consistently throughout history 'better times' had been instated, only to be very short-lived. Then to be heralded as an example of something to be achieved...again, by...well, taking hostage of the present. The most recent example I thought of of "better times" was 1950's West. The only reason I thought of it was because it was my parents' childhood but I'm sure there are others heralded. The point I'm trying to make is there has never been such a time.

Hmm. I guess it would have been better if a 'neutral' person (if one could find such a thing in this story ;-)) had called Max and asked. It doesn't look good (MO) that you called him and then you reported back. Would have been better if Max himself came online to TTB's and said what you said he said. I wanted to support you in 'getting the facts' and so on but unfortunately, IMO/IME it doesn't work that way. ----not being mean caveat added---- My personal experience also tells me that people don't really like being spoken for. So if someone lets you do it, something's up.

Cameron, are you really surprised???? Ok, you might be and my post implies that I think you ought to know better, but maybe you don't. Sorry about that. I don't want to sound mean or anything, and my intent is courteous but you might want to look at marketing/advertising/propaganda material to account for some of the 'effect' that a lot of noise about Kunlun (good or nay) might have. I'm almost sure any practice gets more hits when we have a TTB's ruckus about it. I can't say anything about Kunlun as a practice but I'm certainly intrigued enough to try it :-)

Hmm, is it the same thing? I guess from what you're saying it is (as much as an 'is' is:-)) Anyway, don't most people take action towards some kind of fruit? Or to avoid something? Otherwise they wouldn't. I suggest there's always a reason, even if the reason is wrong. I know 'desire' gets a bad rap in the buddhist canon, but isn't it one of the few things that keeps us alive when all other signs would tend to point to an early shuffle off this plane? OT alert --- So knowing this, just substitute a fruit of desire for a fake fruit and you gotcha monkey ---- Still, I kind of sort of can 'get' what you're pointing to. Perhaps a gap between whatever the desire was based upon and what's 'really' going on? So in practice, you're acting based on 'old news'? This stuff has a bunch of horrible ramifications IMO.

Well, why bother giving such things names? My figuring is that if you name something, you're trying to gain some kind of mastery over it. Implications!

I'd like to say this looks suspicious. And "VIPR"?? WTF?

I liked Deci-belle's suggestion too:-) DB, even if you can see through things, does it make any difference? I dunno, I guess I'm sort of tired. I was going to add "of all of this" but I'm just tired:-) Anyways, the people who aren't "refining" their mind seem to be taking part in it all a hell of a lot more than i am with all this mindfulness business. I'm not concerned. I just noticed it. So, better be getting back to that third-eye workout then.

At last an argument i like:-) I'd still like to be able to shoot beams of qi out of my third eye but I'm having trouble enough with untangling the other stuff. Anyways, my take on this one is that what you're talking about would more easily for me be a felt illustration of the network. But that sounds a bit goofy i think.

Well that's disappointing I thought I had a few scraps of personality left. Bugger. Anyways, so to irrationally tie in this thread/line of thinking with previous personal musings about how TaoMeow "knew" (but hasn't so far said) about what caused the change in the cycle of the hexagrams (that's the outside of the 'wheel' from the POV of where I sometimes sit in nothing and where all the f*ckery is taking place BTW, with and without my forays onto the edge of it) Something happened. What I mean is that the wheel is always there (as is the possibility of sitting in the middle of it in emptiness) but prior to this 'something happening' the wheel was quite a bit different and (from reports/idealized myths) quite a lot more harmonious/beautiful/life-promoting, as only actual harmony is wont to be. Many ideas about 'what happened' have been floated but they almost always involve human fault/sin or agency/responsibility. Which is rather convenient, don't you think? And the 'why this is f*cked' reasons today tend to continue along the same veins. IMO it's a very old story

I haven't redone in a while. Have been too busy playing about with other things. Yes, the incarnated 'stuff' is very important IME/IMO and there's also 'other' stuff that you can't get at with TRE. It's certainly helpful though.

I have a "thing" about logic these days. I think i might be "logic-handicapped" (need to address that one) but what I have noticed is how "rational" all this has seemingly gotten. No more crazy talk of lizards?Now it's about logical truth all of a sudden? Are teachers now required to put a disclaimer about their origins and abilities or get a teacher's certificate??? Sloppy, i understand your school model but to me that seems just slightly more rigid than i think i'd like a "spiritual" teacher to be (maybe a sign i should go there hahahaha) Has it all gone the "certified yoga teacher route"? Is it just a pyramid scheme? If i see another teacher website with "store" as a menu item i may (don't want to do an unfortunate invocation here:-)) hurl. I felt myself unhappy that 5et was basically telling us how "unsuccessful" he was financially with his teachings. While at the same time we've got megachurches, Deepak Chopra, Wayne Dyer et al. I mentioned Joey Yapp to someone the other day. I think we've had a version of this conversation before and i don't know where I'm going with it but "something's up" as they say. Edited: I don't mean Sloppy's post above (that would bring the linear logic monster alive:-)). It was a comment i saw him make in the other 5et thread. I guess this is where my logic problem is! (Sorry, i think i might have found it:-))

"free myself?" Yeah, i've compared the (i think that's what it is) post-heaven trigram changes to a dharma wheel. But have you noticed the "empty" centre of the wheel? I've figured (so far) that myself neither wants freed nor off the wheel. But that's about as far as i've figured so far. I'm assuming if i wish to figure out more then i will at some point. However, IMO/IME all that seems a bit silly for the limited person i am (not derogatory btw, i mean "limited" as in i'm not a car, nor a lawn, nor a man, nor a tree. That sort of thing.

Good post Mr Smarty:-) My take on this particular fight is both personal and philosophical. It's NOT "spiritual". I've been reading stuff on Ayahausca curanderos (sp?) and it reads like they are the "fightiest" folks ever! The really badly intentioned are called something else. I couldn't even find the word. Some kind of witch. I don't think in this instance we have a case of "badly intentioned something else" on either side of the argument. Although by now i know better than to intervene further than that (or have to duck lots :-)) What i'd like to share though is how much of a burden wanting to like someone can get. Especially if you don't. Especially when all "reason" points to why you "should". IME i've had a much easier time showing respect to people i do like and people i don't like. It's those people i "should" like but don't that i've had the hardest time with. Until i admitted to myself i didn't like them. Paradoxically, after that, several of them ended up being folks i really appreciated and got on well with. Not all of them mind. But what i mean is "don't force yourself". A few cts.

ur, i have a question about certification / legitimacy. I have already wondered/asked some ( ok, one :-)) people what/why about the need for it with respect to a "spiritual" practice. I'm wondering this because i figure the legitimacy/certification is a people thing. Not that people are devoid of spirit. IME/IMO to the contrary. But it seems that certification and legitimacy are required by people (including teachers as we can see they legitimate themselves/each other through lineages/traditions etc). So i wanted to get deeper into that line of questioning. It's sort of on-topic, i think, because it goes into stuff about lineages and authorised practices and such. My personal position on it is hopefully ok- clear. Just ask if not:-)

Probably a bit before that:-)

Well i reckon you're lucky you're doing it/working stuff out for yourself now:-) It's not impossible that those other kids will have their own wake-up somewhere down the line. I guess i feel sad that you've labelled them all pretty much. Don't they have the same potential? I hear ya on the what we're taught stuff. BTW, it doesn't stop at kids:-) I also think it ought to be possible to live with folks and do the "weird" stuff without them noticing it much (except maybe what a strong, confident, pleasant to be around person you are:-)). Not sure how you'd acheive that though. Edit: Sorry for threadjack. Slopps, if you want to discuss further we could re-thread. Informer would be happy if i did one, apparently;-)