Birch

I can tell you what I did with it. Felt it entirely. I think that was the hardest part of it. It turned out to be a strong emotion, but not as strong as I was afraid of. I didn't do anything (to my knowledge) based on it. Nor not do. I let it happen. And then some things became obvious and got changed as a result. Some of them by me. Definite consequences. I think umbrella terms like "love" and "hate" are to be looked into carefully. I've already made mistakes with that. And I'm not convinced they're opposites either. In my case, the "hate" was actually something else, still "horrible", but once admitted, deal-able. I read a nice blog the other day that mentioned that the best way to get out of a trap is to find out how the trap works.

I didn't see it, but isn't that the Shakti-helmet guy? http://www.shaktitechnology.com/ Were the people in the experiment (self)conscious of the weirdness? The weirdness I can sort of get, but the "how in the hell am I aware that it's weird" is something I'm not "getting" - unless I go down the pure conscious awareness blah blah blah route. Oh crap, that would mean that this pure consciousness stuff is either entirely plausible or...???

What does that sentence mean to me? Something of a microcosm/macrocosm thing. I happen not to believe in "God" "out there" - can you see where I'm going with this? As far as I can tell, religions that offer up personified deities are doing more to exemplify, justify and reinforce local social/cultural conditions than describe reality. Which the former end up being for people...but I think now the cat's out of the bag. So your next god "out there" has to be much more impressive, or come from outer-space or something...

I saw Dr Dyer's youtube vid on this theme and it was very nice with the beach and beautiful architecture-built house and flippant scripted hangers-on. I found it a bit "Secret-y" for some reason. And I figure the reason I found that is that "thinking" IMO (am I adding enough subjective caveats here??) seems to me (yawn, more self-centeredness) to occur on so many levels (right down to my bones and, dare I add, further...but that would be getting ahead of myself) that I found he didn't get into that thinking part of it quite enough. In other words (of mine, yada, yada) there's the "steam" of thinking and then there's actual "fire." - Ok, I'll admit that the latter consideration was whispered to me a while back. Still, I reckon Dr Dyer's stuff is wonderful for cooking noodles :-)

Send me your address and I'll mail the book to you. As far as I can figure and have tried. You set yourself up to have very specific muscle tremors. If you've ever tried "sitting at the wall" type exercises and found your legs shaking after, then that's some ways to explain it. I don't know if Bercelli has selected very specific areas to focus on. I figure he probably has. edit:typo

Hey RV! If you've done any mindfulness stuff, you might have come across muscles doing just that. I don't think it has to be full-bodied twitching to get anywhere. But I do like the shaking stuff. I reckon it's half-way. Like shamanic recap is half-way. What I mean by "half-way" is you're conscious of it. The seeming opposite of what got (me) into the mess to begin with. I see my cat doing it's shake-out thing spontaneously and there I am, jumping around

Yes I had a similar thought a while back. I figured needle-less acupuncture would be a good response. And for sure, the herbs themselves have very specific patterns (I've been pondering this one as well) that "fit" with whatever needs to be done, so in theory, all you'd need to do would be to "reproduce" the herb via qigong. But can people do that? There was another neat TaoMeow post about the learnings of herbs and their consequent effects on people. And what if the herb doesn't want to? Sounds like a stupid idea, perhaps...

I wonder if we are conditioned to believe that to begin with. I think we might be conditioned to believe that we need to believe in something like "god" or whatever as a play into to our very helplessness at the beginning of our lives. That some people take advantage (ad nauseum) of this natural state of affairs seems to me to be horrendous...plausible.

If could've multi-millioned plussed it I would've. I haven't checked, but I reckon I gave up that particular use of "you" a while back. I think I keep the use of "you" for questions, maybe some jokes. A few insults. Edited: to add my use of "you" as a hypothetical person. Not sure who that would be exactly And used to give an example using Otis and the tires I saw him jumping over. I know we have eprime day or whatever. Do we have "it's not you it's me day" ?

Going back to the "self" thread. Figuring that part out. Rinsing. Repeating I'm still doing it. Yes it's "you" and it's not "you" all at the same time. It is and it it ain't that simple IMO/IME. Try it with trees or animals and see how you fare Manitou, I think the manitou practice is a nice one to remember. That we see manitous on/in people. But wouldn't that also be "ganying" as well ? I figure if you only ever consider people in the moment they are in relationship with you then I reckon you'll find it tough to consider they might have a life other than you that will effect their relationship with you (and vice-versa). Otis, even the tires you jump over may be moving in your absence :-) They escape you :-) (and you them :-)) But if they (or you) are behaving badly in relationship with each other, what do we say, that "Tao" is fighting herself? Why bother continuing to fight? I think making "the others" all about "you" seems to me to be childish at best. Your "yes-man"-liking boss might be out for a yes in some cases but not at all in others. Assuming you know what his or her motivations are is also IMO/IME a potential error. My anecdote is biased as I've personally met so many "bosses" who actually would prefer less of the brown-nosing and more of a straight up answer - doesn't mean IMO/IME you have to be unkind or disrespectful in telling anyone that their idea isn't so hot. Assuming you have to coddle them because you can't formulate a decent criticism doesn't sound to me to be very skillful. The part I always struggle with is this idea that if you don't like something in someone, you must be reacting to part of yourself (as in "small self"). I don't buy that on the individual level. I keep getting told to buy it at macro-level. Why?

Oh man. That video was. And then the guy just sort of got up and? Did you mean to take me OT? If so, I will go post the tin (soup) can in my PPF right away

"The proportions of the Thangka must be correct and the pigments made with the appropriate substances." There was a neat TaoMeow post about something similar a while back. If you adhere to something along the lines of everything floating about in a big soup can and influencing each other (or just chemistry and physics and biology and neurology and sociology, and geography and theology and genetics :-)) then it could be fun to figure out what the proportions and substances were and whether the painter handled them or not, made them his/herself or not and all that:-). Well, I guess I'd find it fun...

If I could have double-plus-one'd it I would've. And where do you reckon the roots of this problem lie? I have a kind of an idea but I'm saving it up

Well I suppose acknowledging that they have an existence outside of your idea of them could be a good start? A nice and proper dualism. Which IMO/IME can't be skipped over on the way to non-dualism because you'll get the proportions weird otherwise and start attributing stuff to them that comes from you and vice-versa. And as I find more and more, having compassion for oneself seems to help with the other people thing - aside from the consideration that you won't quite be as bothered with whatever they're doing or what they look like. Unless, to borrow a Mr MH situation, they're kicking your a44 literally or figuratively and you need to do something about it.

Hum, more splitty definitions. To say this body is "mine" rather than it's "me". There wasn't an order IMO as much as a call to respond. It was myself who typed it. I liked Otis's thing about the faulty translation better but your thing about personality is a fun one to dive into. Apech, where's your expertise in latin when one needs it? Where does "personality" come from?

I can't tell, as it's also my porn-star name and someone might recognize me. But you were all ever so smashers

I liked this :-) Well of course there's a self, otherwise who would be typing this reply out on a silly keyboard :-)? The way I'm sort of starting-ish to consider ego is as the constricting/contracting thing, the straining thing and the hurting thing. The thing that gets het up about fabricated situations (and who knows if it doesn't make that stuff up itself?) and can't tell the difference between reality and an opinion (because it just as easily cools down if you pretend the reverse or stop thinking about the "issue").

Looks very interesting! What I've found with practice is that lots of "esoteric" symbols start showing themselves off. Another side effect is that things that are ostensibly NOT "esoteric" also start showing signs of it. Seems that us people can't help fiddling with symbols. That part is probably more troubling to me on an everyday level but I'm sure the TTB's with more than decent rhetorical skills are already up to scratch on that stuff. What might be even more weird IMO is the ways in which adepts (collectively?) decide upon any given symbol (or system of them) and how the latter bleed through into everything else. And who's "in the know" and who isn't? Does not being "in the know" put you at a disadvantage? I've so far considered dharma wheels and post-heaven changes to be more or less balanced (but maybe they're not in reality ) and include borders around the edges. At this point, I'll have to say that the middle (being empty) is probably the only thing that I can adhere to with any consistency. Which is pretty pointless :-) I've read some of Crowley's stuff and it reminded me of some tantric practices - or at least I managed to see that in it. I read a neat book the other day about how the court advisors would inform one of the emperors of his wrongdoings. Instead of criticizing him outright (possible risk of execution) they would write him reports in which very bizarre and unnatural phenomena were recounted, like geese flying backwards. Not because actual geese were flying backwards, but to tell the emperor that he was messing things up. I reckon we've gotten more and more literal as time has passed and forget just how much symbolism we use every day.

Can you explain why/how all that? The children part I kind of get. But why the spouse? And I'd tend to argue the reverse, that cultivators would probably be good parents. But I guess it depends on what they're cultivating and where they're at with it (and potentially this process might take them past their child-rearing years?)

When it gets easier? When everything gets easier? Even the bad times? I found a personal practice forum on here was good. Not so much to measure, but to prattle on about what I thought were the craziest, wildest experiences ever. Turns out they weren't that crazy. Thanks again TTB's :-) I guess "progress" implies you have a goal towards which you're undertaking meditation as a means of getting there? A place where you are not already. I mean it is referred to as a "vehicle" or a "path" Depending on what techniques you're using, there are sort of roadmaps out there. I still like Dan Ingram's stuff - even if I found him harsh. I don't know though, I think it says more about the techniques than anywhere a given person might be going. I like the biology of kundalini website. But then I'd chosen a referent practice, so it made sense I'd go check that out.

Sounds fun :-) It occurred to me the other day that the Holy Grail (of which this retreat is a play on words and action) is an actual neural structure that links up the various parts of the brain in order to effect an "integrated" person. Yep, it's goblet/cup shaped but that's just a schematic, if you draw the links between the different brain areas...

Intriguing this part. I was wondering about multiple lines of reality the other day. And how wanting also includes not wanting. I mean there are many things of which I am not aware (both good and bad). Doesn't mean they don't exist. Just that they don't exist "for me". But, hopefully, practice reveals just how narrow that perspective is. So what effect, what consequences would this alien activity have on someone who is not "in that space" in their thoughts, their beliefs, their actions etc? None at all? What if everyone around you was living in that space? Manitou, you might have some experience with this with the local fundies? Edited to add this Rationalizing Not my preferred definition, but I couldn't find that neat post/citation about rationalization as a maybe useful but not true kind of thing to do.

At some point during my practice it occurred to me that "qi" is definitely sexual and that everything is desire-driven - including, ironically, the intellect to dissect such things and the creativity to find solutions to the resulting problems. It's just jing doing its thing:-) I would also like to suggest that the "jing" loss that might be referred to is pre-heaven jing. In other words the potential continuity of life/spirit? I dunno, I just had an idea. That might warrant clarification. Because if you're not losing post-heaven jing then why bother with celibacy? I recall the gnostics made a distinction between reproductive vs non-reproductive sex and that in other writings/traditions "virginity" had more to do with being childless than sexually "untouched". It's been mentioned elsewhere that another reason to have a large number of people who cannot reproduce under one banner (or "religion") is a way of consolidating wealth and power which would otherwise have to be dissipated to provide for the family. So while the "energetics" of sexual abstinence (or repression) are often discussed, I wonder if it might also make sense to bring in some wider consequences. Socially, for example, right now, there's lot being "done" to entice men and women into very particular sexual roles. I recall the TTC mentions something about getting the basic family unit "right" in order to rule whole nations. What does that refer to if not the sexual/reproductive/relationship aspects of people"s lives, and why on earth would a book be making recommendations about how to proceed ? After a period which caused me great embarrassment because ALL my practice had an effect in that respect, I then just sort of let it go. So now the "sexual" vs "non-sexual" feelings aren't that clear cut any more IME. In fact it's made me wonder if the actual "heat" of sexual feeling isn't partly due to repressing it? Anyway, I digress. However, assuming it's a result of social repression, it would have to have been repressed very early on, but I just don't remember it. And, moreover, repressed by whom? That's very spooky.

"all false" is IMO about as useful as "all true". Can I suggest "partially true" rather than the (surprisingly) "relative true" of the buddhists? My take is unless you are actively deceiving yourself or someone else (and, after all, wouldn't that take their own participation as well?) then whatever your truth is is simply part of it. Assuming yours is "all" or "nothing" is IMO both more and less than it is.

Interesting stuff. I'd argue many reasons I'm looking for a map on occasion: - I said already, sometimes I need permission, my bad - because the terrain as explained to me from the get go has changed (as it is wont to do anyway) - and/or the explanations themselves are no longer applicable - whether that be from the very second they were fed to me or minutes or years later. IMO the more this stuff goes, the more obvious and natural it gets.