Birch
-
Content count
5,943 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Everything posted by Birch
-
Wow, an enjoyable GIH post Sorry GIH I'm kidding. I enjoy most of yours. Anyway, it's your subconscious, isn't it? So this rat business is your own to sort out. Or maybe if those dream dictionaries have any sway then it might prove the existence of 'collective (sub) consciousness which would throw a handy argument your way for the Mind being elsewhere - and in which case it's not your rat as such, but a rat you've been given. Or have you been inspired by TaoMeow's post ? I was! I dreamt about strange flying objects last night. One type was an entirely new design and another was just 'too stupid looking to fly'. I suspect it was the future but I can't be sure. I've had a few 'flying saucer' and 'earth invasion' dreams over the years. In most, I wake up after trying to tell people (in vain) what's going on. I'm trying to figure out whether dream interpretation ought to use symbol dictionaries and if so, which one(s) and why or whether the person should go the 'what it means to me' route. Maybe try both and see what happens?
-
+100 but let's not assume there isn't anything 'useful' in the teachings. I touched on this in another thread.
-
Christianity, Buddhsim, Religious Taoism
Birch replied to Harmonious Emptiness's topic in General Discussion
"How many ass kissers are surrounding them? How much fluffy garbage they can churn out in a minute?" I don't think it's just a$$ ki$$ing. I sometimes wonder why I didn't grow up under shamanism (well I did, but probably the wrong kind ) and why when we consider 'religion' we're mainly referring to monotheisms (I sort of include Buddhism under this because of all the 'Buddha says' stuff.) I'm trying to figure out why a pretty consistent set of principles are taught. I'm starting to think they're taught because alongside them other things are also taught. And it's the other things that are the intent/focus of the teaching and exercise of religion. -
I do lots of that and yes "it works" but i'm not doing it because it works. Because I fell into it that way "it works." I'd make fly/flippant remark here. C'ept it is pointless IMO Still, none of what I'm doing even registers with the folks i'd like it to. I think. And IMO if I share my POV with folks it doesn't go down too well IME.
-
Your own sense of it? The internalized authority. I've had experiences of feeling physically scared/sick when I've done something that goes against the grain, even if that grain is ludicrous. Reminds me of Alex in Clockwork Orange.
-
-
Maybe! And maybe there's something about the way I've learned language that makes it near impossible to grasp much of what you're saying. And maybe there's something about the way you guys are communicating that obscures meaning for some? Which is fine if you want:-) The "we don't talk right" thing could be cute, I'm really not sure. I believe that my comment was intended to offer y'all an opportunity to get more participation and to pose the wider question of how the way things are talked about might hold keys to truths about them or ont. Because we only ever talk about things, not talk the things themselves. In qi-gong there are forms and sponteous qi-gong (often referred to as formless). They are both about physical reality while simultaneously being real. I think that's why I like it:-) I guess it would be hard to have a "formless" conversation on a forum but I guess I'm wondering if your "forms" are doing whatever they're supposed to do. Maybe exclude people, yes? If not, then could you be more inclusive? Or maybe point folks like me in the correct practice direction to ensure that I'll "get it" at some point? :-)
-
Occur to anyone that not everyone might have the conceptual framework to understand a lot of the discussions? I keep getting lost in the GIH, Todd and Vmarco posts because they're so...wordy. I'm doing my best to "get" what you guys are on about but roughly half the time I'm lost. I don't know if it's because I'm mediocre, maybe, but I can read some other posters' complicated stuff and understand it right away. I wonder why that is?
-
I've wondered about that too. But I've found it also works in reverse too. So if I feel like sh$t I'll get more crap thoughts than when I don't.
-
"If we all just blindly accepted whatever we were indoctrinated to, where would that leave us?" Right about here:-) There are still a lot of things I blindly accept. A lot of other things I don't. Why is that? Because it's oh so much more convenient and comfortable to accept. What things should I not accept and what things are worth questioning? It seems there are so many! But I think the ones that might be worth questioning are the ones which seem to go to great lengths to convince me, perhaps use force, perhaps shame, perhaps promise me something great if I walk that way...
-
I wonder what cults are for? In my more insecure moments I see them as the permitted shadow of monotheistic religions. In other words if your views run too far from the established doctrine then there's a place for you still:-) There was a start of a discussion about why mystics hung around the coattails of established religious doctrines. Are they a bit like those CIA guys? Are they guiding doctrine itself? I got spooked by that reported KW remark on mediocrity. It seems people are always trying to make the world a better place by training people rather than, well, anything. But what if the world in it's current state is as good as it's going to get due to the structures we've got in place and no amount of training (or mind-control for that matter) is going to help? I realise all that sounds negative but gotta take the rough with the smooth:-)
-
I get that too! So i guess the only way to figure out what they're up to in that situation is to be aware of how you feel and look at what you do?
-
KW has (or runs) a university which puports to train leaders. Do you think I should take his remarks about mediocrity in isolation from his wider mission/profession/source of income (unless he's not paid, then we can get into a discussion about prestige and influence:-)) What I've understood so far is that it's possible to de and re-condition the ego (validated through experience) and it's possible to drop it entirely (this remains a theory for me even if I have had weird moments, but I'm quite suspicious of those at this point:-)) This is the gist of the long vs short path malarky. So shouldn't it be up to people themselves to decide which and when of the paths to follow? Or not to follow any path whatsoever and just be themselves? Mediocrity n all? The anti-boomer stance is IMO forgetting what that generation brought to many of our cultures. Railing against them for not being better than they are is IMO childish. It doesn't mean the following generations are going to follow their flaws either. This impression bears out both on the bums and in pockets of the wider society.
-
Can you be right AND have the other person be right as well? I do think there are cases in which this is obviously wrong to do but in others, it might be possible. I don't know where we get the zero-sum thinking from but i think it's possible for two people to be right without that being a source of hurt or alienation. I think it's a bit like this ego thing, once you accept it it sort of gives way, once you accept some certainties (or your need for them) the fight against them gives way. Given reality is what it is, what would be the more useful way to relate to it. I mean even a boat floating on a sea has it's certainty, otherwise no-one would ever have attempted to cross oceans. I also think that if the way you see the world tends to alienate people it's just as easy to "not go there" with everyone. I mean why do you need any of these people to agree with you? Or anyone on the TTB'z for that matter? I haven't been plus one-ing for a while because it doesn't show up on my mobile, which is from where I do most TTB reading:-)
-
Oh these are great! Thanks for posting. Mine tend to go a bit like this: Oh! I just noticed i was thinking, what was it? Oh yeah that (again) damn if follow that one nothing good is going to come of it so...nixed. Ok, what can I think of instead? Ok, let's plan the day in the right order, ok ---switches order about until it feels like a good order---....
-
How to pull timelines out of Xiantian? How about getting rid of the conditions under due course in Houtian? Then a new timeline practically has to come into effect because you rid yourself of the other one. I'm just thinking about it - I don't actually know how to do it. Although I suppose I've done it at least twice:-) Mr Slopps, I'm quite convinced that if your interests are as wide-ranging as you say then it really won't matter much about your education not "fitting" the market. I don't think most people's does. I don't think it was supposed to be a market-entry plan.
-
Yeah, I think pitting certainty against new ideas isn't very helpful. We ought to be capable of both and I believe most people are if you approach them the right way. Telling them they're wrong probably won't help the 'new ideas' cause. So we also have scientific method which many people have agreed to accept as a vector of accepting new ideas but not everything gets allowed to have the scientific method used on it.
-
All this stuff is getting confusing. As far as I'd like to suggest, there is nothing in mind apart from the stream. The thought of knowing a thought is "just a thought" is IME also "just" a thought but it has a different "quality" to it than the thought that "doesn't know" it's "just" a thought. So why is this? I figure there could be lots of reasons/explanations- from the inherent nature of some thoughts (as in we don't tend to equate viewing something with "thinking" although I've seen people try to push that idea over the edge) to just because someone else told you that's how it works (see "it's not what you think" as a pretty standard response to many obviously "it is what you think" situations...) I grant religions the ability to get large numbers of people to tell each other both what to think and how to think and some will go very far into the thinking process in order to make sure no-one gets left out...but IMO their more obvious flaws start showing up when they attempt to interpret people's inner lives in ways that suit the religions more than the people. Which is one of the reasons they suck IMO. Reasons they might also not suck are that they are also often huge repositories of information about how they do what they do and how to undo what they do. Also lots of very neat physical / mental practices in many of them but I haven't worked out why that stuff is there (inside religions) yet.. Yes my self-construct happens to be anti-religious. No I am neither inherently flawed for bearing this POV nor do I have any bad church experiences to tell (although I remember ages ago thinking "this is just ridiculous" when the old biddy attempted to convince me of various things.) I find it interesting that buddhism is doing so well in our times and I think one of the reasons might be that it truly goes further into people's inner lives than many others. I find it intrusive at some levels but I'm also interested in just how far it's proponents will go.
-
No problem with sharing:-) I was again pondering my varied experiences and wondering if i were to explain some of them, which one might get interpreted one way and which another and how screwed up that would probably be because I figure I've had experiences that could claim from several traditions:-) I figure that in itself is pretty weird but even more interesting IMO is the way I choose to describe some of them and the way they end up getting categorized and why. I mean some of them fall into the "can't explain in words" camp but I do try to explain in words, maybe this word business is where several of the issues lie?
-
Oh. Ok. I was afraid this morning that the buddhists had finally got me. Like I said, i've had experiences but apparently they're not the right ones relative to certain people's systems. Since I've been on these boards I've heard varying versions of "not good enough" or "inherently flawed" permeating much of the discussions. I was thinking about this yesterday and wondering who are these people who are taking liberties and judging the quality of other people's experiences and then passing it off as gospel? I suppose its my fault for sharing (again) some of my experiences. I'm doing it out of interest because it's pretty rare to get to discuss some of this stuff and not because i want some buddhist approval.
-
I've had experiences that I'd describe as something like that. But they don't last (thank god) and after them I get back to being me with a very clear sense that I am and other people are and the world is and religions suck.
-
Thanks Ralis! When I'm bored I think I shall add '-ness' or '-ity' as a suffix to describe the true essence of things. Hahaha. I've read too much of that kind of philosophy I think. I was going to start a thread on why some "spiritual" folks seem to prefer lofty sounding old-school phrasing. I mean I know some things are hard to express but when we get into 'spiritual' territory, why the need to talk like a two-thousand year old book? Could it be that our language has cut us off (even more) from some things?
-
I'm not sure I'd equate 'self' with 'mere convention'. Conventions hold a lot of power. Actually, I was wondering this morning whether this 'self' term hadn't gotten all mixed up with 'Brahman' at one point? Is 'self' really the translated term? My current experience of 'no self' is that beyond the silly stories and thoughts "about" myself there's still a 'being' which in its relationship with everything else forms a unique expression of, well, itself and everything else:-) So its existence depends on its non-existence. I guess. But if this is just the regular state of affairs, why bother making a religion out of it? I haven't figured that one out yet.
-
"Your access to different timelines is determined by their emotional rather than spacial or temporal proximity. I.e. if you feel you "belong here" and all you want to do is tweak with your position "here," you can learn to lucid-dream in this timeline. But if you feel you "belong elsewhere," you will need to work out the details of this "elsewhere" first. " Interesting. I keep wondering if the interweb might be interfering with my ability to switch over to a world without a certain number of undesirables in it (including mercury in fish and fiat currencies that leave millions up the creek without a paddle). Although it also seems that it's one of the principal channels through which I'm gaining a sense of hope that all is not entirely lost and that big and beneficial changes are on their way in many areas.
-
Does the reincarnated Lao Tzu or Lord Buddha need an energy transmission?
Birch replied to tulku's topic in General Discussion
I agree, but if you've never had an energy transmission it's IME worth doing if only for the sheer inexplicable-ness of the experience. I still can't explain it and I'd very much like to be able to on grounds that won't have people looking at me like I'm a nutter. I mean we can explain lasers, right? Bacteria. Snow and earthquakes...then why not energy transmissions? Or is it another thing that we're going to shy away from because it's a bit complicated and immaterial-like and we don't have the equipment? If we can put people on the moon and into space, can't we explain this stuff?
