Birch

Epigenetics (sp?) I figure I'd look there. So maybe not changing the DNA part of the equation but changing the other parts of it?

I do 'em "light nuclear processes" in my kitchen every morning:-) Nah, serious-like. Do we have an actual say in the which is the what? Seriously, I speak to people who seem uber serious about it. Which is better?

That's interesting I doubt deliberately provoking people gets your practices any more than the flip off. I wonder if Victorian England was a repressive as all that or whether they were just paying lip service. I suspect the more prudish and repressed a culture, the more it's actually crazy underneath, but I digress:-) Still, I'm interested in what AC actually did or did not do in terms of reprehensible stuff because i think that while he had every right to do what he wanted to himself, he didn't have the right to drag anyone else in without their full and enlightened consent. So yeah it would change my perspective on him if I knew. As an aside, this gets into the idea of dissasociating people from their practices or teachings and perhaps looking the other way when they do obviously reprehensible stuff. But I think we've had that discussion already?

Thanks for your post Anmatva. Very interesting. I guess my description of the difference is that the e-word is what I consider "about" myself. It's the story "about". The other one, doesn't rely on stories. Just is. So maybe we have them crossed? Anyway, at some point, yes I believe there is a merging of both but I'm neither sure it happens all at once, nor that it will ever stop happening. I feel it to be the collison (or the meeting) of spirit and the world, in the world and vice versa. I don't think I get that understanding from any particular tradition but I did do practices that were pretty tantrically inspired, so maybe that idea just comes with the territory. Which in itself would be a) weird and lend some grist to the mill for some other arguments that I'm seeing discussed Thank you for not trying to convince me:-) I agree with the post about the orange. I think people try to get to such understandings sometimes because of their experiences with other people and not oranges. I guess if the orange were less tangible...anyway, I think I do. I try to remember simple ideas like that when dealing with people (including myself:-)) but I think people are weirder than that in totality:-)

Possibly not meant to agree but to create through the disagreement. If i agreed with everyone, I'd be talking to myself :-) Anyway, Wittgenstein or someone blethered on about why bother having conversations. To keep having them :-) I think there's a bit more to it than that but I don't have time to discuss it :-) There's a bacon sandwich to be eaten!

Those are some very good posts JB! I can't PM from the device I'm using so could you recommend some stuff that you used to train it? Specific teachers even? Thanks!

Thanks I will check it out. You know, I'm just as wary of positive spin as I am of negative spin:-) Truth is around there somewhere but when the people are long dead, how does one go about finding it out?

Marblehead, that would count as a "drive by" in my book:-) Reckon you really need to check in to get reassurance that you're not doing something reprehensible and smelling rose/turdy in the eyes of some smart people:-)? I dunno, I guess I share distaste of overly "nice" folks that offer blessings and suggest folks go in peace while ripping them a new one. But isn't the way to handle those just another skill to be learned? Methinks so:-) The mods might have more oomph to get rid of them but it won't improve my skill if I don't learn to spot them and deal or not deal with them in conversation. GIH, the intent thing is interesting. Could you write more on it?

Super post Dawei!

I quite like that idea. Not to get too far into the self problem:-) but I read/see/know "ego" as the conditioned self (the shell created around oneself to protect it from whatever it needed protection from - and I'd argue, mainly this culture). Anyway, comes a time one doesn't need the shell anymore and needs to crack it open. Exposing the self to the world without the shell can be painful which is why IMO people seek to grow a bigger one, or insist that their shell now encompasses all of it. Well, i say, why not just let your self dry off a little and see how it goes in the world without a shell? I guess that's when one ends up realising one's strength inside. No shells needed. Of course, I'm only speaking for myself:-)

Well I did come across some of 'AC''s 'stuff' online. It seemed very similar to some tantric stuff/golden flower I can relate to. Anyways what I mean is if you do practice(s) then you can sort of of read through the stuff and go 'ah yes'. What I mean when I say he 'ripped it off' was that I think he took it from the standpoint of 'what powers can I get from this' and was premature in both his practice and establishing himself as a teacher. IMO K practices are like a hedge. Doesn't mean you'll get it it if you do them. You can also have it happen without doing anything at all (apparently ) If you think of his context, culture and mindset I'm hardly surprised he dreamt up devils and such in full K. I think it's not worth 'making things accessible' to people in every case. Look at Mary Jane. Possibly ritual use, now serves to blunt (sic) sad lives. What stuff was wrongly attributed to him?

It's the"..." that joins them. Like you need silence between notes to hear music. Oh, I forget. my 2cts. And what's pure consciousness looking for then?

Great! Thanks Mr MH!

Right. This is where I remind myself that this point in time would come (actually I'm just currently experiencing deja-vu which a lot has been written about but I'm damned if I know, really :-)) when I read someone writing a glowing review about AC and I feel compelled to say that a) he ripped off tantric\kundalini teachings and (my personal speculation) possibly during a bout of K syndrome, did some rather horrible things (apparently). I still don't get why he had people following him into that sh*t. But hey. We could have the whole cult discussion over.

The thing taking over is what I meant :-) Anyway, it's a great site.

I dunno, I like to think that practice (and living) has kind of gotten me progress on the right/left brain stuff. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, do you think that if the other states are cultivated that will concretely help the rest of the(us) left-brained people and the world they're(we) in? Remember that if what you're saying is correct you'd have to have enough left brain to communicate with them(us). So in that case I'd suggest doing both :-) And maybe underreporting the 'states'. But if you could just communicate right brain to right brain, well.

You know, it's pretty rare to attend such amazing insights as and when they occur

Yes I was thinking that. I thought of the general\old main forum and it feels a bit too 'hot' to me and then I thought of the daoist forum and it feels like a cool breeze. I'm being serious fer once :-)

So, can I?

Hey Todd! No I hadn't edited it, but I did have to go check to make sure Why did it read differently? Well, there's something about that activity that is not entirely mine, not entirely yours either :-) But I digress! I loved your reply. I felt very good reading it. Had you noticed though that it wasn't yours but Adyashanti's? I guess that's alright. Most music I listen to isn't mine either but I still enjoy it when people share what they like with me :-) About the trust thing. I don't think it's a sweeping thing one does or does not do or is or is not. Discernment, always :-) I don't think it's worth saying 'I don't trust people' because in at least one case you must have trusted and the people/the person failed you, otherwise you wouldn't bother with anything related to this 'trust' stuff. Of course there are people one shouldn't and can't trust (I can think of a few:-)). I don't get what's the deal about understanding that. IMO it would be foolish to attempt to push your 'trust' on someone that blatantly shows they don't deserve it. Same goes the other way too :-). The other thing I liked about what you quoted was that it showed an understanding of the progression of path and the fact that it has to be taken up by the person themselves. Has to be relevant. Can't rest on precepts :-) Good stuff :-) Thank you! Edited to add. wiredscience/2011/08/the-rhetoric-of-neuroscience/

Sounds like a good idea. Question whatever idea you have. But I'd have a hard time with that because I don't even know what holographic reality is and how I'd even be able to recognize it if I saw it so I guess I'd have to go learn about what it was and then question it. What is holographic reality? But I was thinking about this stuff earlier today and I wondered somewhat. There's another thread (there's always another thread:-)) about this in the Daoist forum:-) Anyway, yes of course whatever we think 'about' reality is only part of it but to then push it and say that impartial reality isn't real, well, I had a tough time with that one. I'm probably going to ask Mr MH if I can use his 'sit your arse down' quote in my sig :-)

No, I was wondering (aloud) whether upon realising that at least some love is conditional one would decide to attempt to find any that isn't. I think that's what might happen. And I was mulling over the idea that if you want to feel love without conditions then you just decide to do it. But that won't hold up if you actually believe that love is conditional. You'd just end up imposing conditions on yourself, which is counterproductive :-) I don't know if that answers the question. I guess I'm suggesting one accepts the conditional type and that one cultivates the unconditional type in oneself and then I guess your bases are covered;-) Or, you could just stop worrying about it.

I haven't tried it and I told myself I didn't really want to because it wasn't something I was learning to do myself.Would my skill at meditation grow from using this type of thing? I also wondered about its portability and I was a bit worried about using something I had no real knowledge about. At least in meditation, you're doing the driving :-)

I wake up in the middle of mine but I don't actually wake up if you see what I mean. That's weird and not always entirely pleasant. Like last night I dreamt I visited this kind of farmhouse where the family who lived there had huge numbers of pregnant animals. Cats, dogs, fish, reptiles, you name it. Anyway, I was politely sitting there (babysitting) getting bombarded by kittens thinking 'man this is awful' and then I realised I was dreaming and I sort of went 'phew' realising it wasn't real but I was still in the dream. It just made it less annoying. Then I switched to another one and I found myself in a store trying on some very expensive orange silk-lined trousers. But I didn't like the hat that went with them and they were far too expensive, so I woke up, but didn't wake up. My take is that this is happening because I have been mucking around with my sense of subjectivity/objectivity through practices. I don't think it says what's 'real' although it might point to the idea that I decide what's real as soon as I decide what's not. But that's just an idea. As was the butterfly dream.