Birch

Like I said, I :wub: :wub: synchronicity

I love synchronicity. "The spiritual life" is IMO often (initially?) fueled by things like this. I hate my mother (and my father to a lesser extent). And I've chosen to use that hate to do things differently. I guess I hate them - while all the while knowing that the "them" I hate are not the "true" them. Just as the shell I became under their rule is not the "true" me. The "true" me is the one they didn't love or take care of because the "true" me did not fit into the mold of what they considered "their child" to be and even what a child "should" be. They don't "get it" - even today and have admitted that they don't "get" me either. They've never actually tried to "get" me. I guess that must be very weird, to have a kid and just not understand anything about them... I'd like to apologise to them because they had kids, imagining these would belong to them and they could do what they wanted with them. Make them become mini-thems, get them to fulfill dreams that they had no intention of putting the work in to achieve, maybe even give them things that they never had from their own parents, love? Big mistake I guess life (Tao?) saw to it that things happened otherwise. But of course, before I hated them, I loved them, but they didn't know it and I haven't told them that yet. I don't think it's useful to tell really old people you hate them. I guess they must have worked it out by now. I don't see why one should apologise for telling others how one really feels about one's parents. They're not sacred cows, they're just people. I'm a people too There have been a few accounts/allusions to people's parents on here but I don't see it talked about much. Like we can talk about blowing chi up our asses but not about mom and dad... Is this because it makes one (me?) seem childish to admit that I'm not necessarily "over" with that part of my life? Will I be treated like an idiot (or talked down to in future pointed debates) if I don't take the "high" "spiritual" road of total forgiveness and "unconditional love"? It was pointed out to me the other day that emotions are not "conditional" - they just are. I know this to be the case. Thanks for putting this subject online.

wow, cool!

Thanks for the ideas Aaron. I don't know 12 step programmes myself but I do know some "steppers" and I suppose I must have met them at various stages on their way, but to be honest, the ones I have met (not very many, just so you know) I haven't found particularly happy about having quit their addiction. I guess I wonder why that is. I think what you say here "most people in recovery at one point realize that recovery isn't just about recovering from an addiction.but also figuring out how to live in a world that is still the same without the addiction." Do the 12 steps go that far? Because IMO and IME (I quit smoking) a world without addiction is an entirely different world. Because a self without an addiction is an entirely different self. It would be unfortunate IMO if you got people to give up an addiction and didn't help them see that part. That would really suck. And also creepily point to something uncool about the programme that I can't quite put my finger on right now. I like the idea of asking "why?". "Why am I doing this to myself"? The 12 steps start off without any questioning. I wonder why that is?

Which I also happen to be Where was that other post of mine where I explicity said "I hope I'm not doing the ganging up thing"? And I was talking about my own ancestral bone to pick with VJ when I posted that. Let's not hitch a ride where none is offered. Cat, you'd be suprised how many people give in to Tesco.

Excellent! Thank you "Mind controls body in extreme experiments" And both would be true in everyday experiments.

Hello Goonis! I looked at the pics and I could only see one where there was a round thing up above the fireplace to the right in the 3rd picture. It reminded me of one of those "lunar projectors" that I've seen in toy stores. It looked like it was projected onto the wall/ceiling. I didn't see anything else in the other two pictures. Can you point the things out? Thank you!

Songs m'boy, you've nailed it. LOOK AT THIS SCREEN cool huh?

I like it. I think the idea of "higher than ourselves" is neat because it helps someone whose (IMO) often fake self is floundering to hitch on to something else (a raft). However, at some point, the fake self gives way to the real (or we "realise").And at that point, I don't believe the group (however supportive) would be necessarily the best thing for someone. Especially since realization seems to have this weird quality of leading you away from groupthinking... I'm also not sure that the label helps particularly, as it drives someone into a specific line of consciousness - which IMO (and small experience) is actually what is initially sought liberation from. So any stance taken as "I am an XYZ" seems problematic to me. It's one of those "good for everyone else" ideas, I guess. So I reckon I take the "teach people the skills" route and trust they will find what they need.

Thanks for the answer Ya Mu! It is a little belated, which caused me to wonder if my question caused you some discomfort? I wondered why a perfectly good practice book would come with that weird beginning. IMO it would put some people off (almost me, but then I read the rest) when the practices themselves are very good - plus all the clinical results you have. I'm at that strange point where I know that time doesn't exist but it does, both at the same time. So I guess I don't mind whatever story you come up with, but I also wonder why the culture in that story looks to me to be very similar to our own "contemporary" North American "culture". Were people before time really like that? I actually hope not. I guess I was hoping for something less, well, superficial and "action movie-ish". But then I know there's a whole tradition of "action-movie" style in Asia... "Where" these practices come from seems partially documented - until you get to the point where no documentation exists. Is that your point? OR, are you attempting to say these practices come from elsewhere than the earth? Something else? If it's from outer space, I won't be happy.

"I do agree it is ideal if we dont begin to say to one another the equivalent of "the trouble with you is." I do too, except this is "what's wrong" with VJ He seems to do it and over do it, and over and over again. At one point I thought, wow, here is this great teacher showing me my ego limits, inside and out. But then that's also valid for everyone else on TTB's. BTW, Apech, it's both bollox and not bollox

Um, VJ, how on earth would you know what my upbringing was? And how on earth would you know what my thought process was when reaching the understanding I did? I guess you might say "Kate, it seems like you're XYZ to me but I'm not sure if that's a reflection of my upbringing or yours" or something along those lines. It seems you're stuck in some kind of clinging to Buddhist explanations of things without realising you're stuck on a concept that, if you're going to go all out with on your path, you have to let go of too.

Sam Harris is hot

Wow, mine too, when I was much younger. In fact I can say that throughout my entire childhood and some way into what followed, no-one ever took my defense in anything. So later on when I realized that this "ganging up" thing seemed to be a source of strength, I would find subtle ways to team up with my father against my mother (on very specific topics) but he would ultimately shift the blame for "making mom upset" to me when things got rough. Hopefully I'm not doing it to anyone here in this forum (the "ganging up" thing) and that my well-considered arguments are well-received (if not always agreed with ) and the ill-considered ones understood as such.

Oh dear. The child is innocent. To suggest otherwise IMO points to something seriously wrong with a line of thinking that seeking to "explain" - crosses a line into justifying abusive behaviour towards anyone. "Past lives" as a justification are IMO muddled thinking. There are a couple of other ideas in there that warrant discussion, such as assuming that a "violent wolf" is in some way negative (associating it with a "crook" and so must be "punished" in a reincarnation). I'm not sure I enjoy how Buddhism seems to be able to go from a seemingly holographic "dependent origination" model to a retribution-based model in the blink of an eye.

Funnily enough (although this is no laughing matter) the abused tend to blame themselves because there is NO plausible explanation at hand to them. Indeed, the abuse is perpetuated by the abused (the "continuum" but not of life, of abuse, very specifically). I suggest you read this http://www.alice-miller.com/index_en.php I would also argue that yes, sometimes "shit" just happens and misplacing your responsibility (for actions that are not your own) and taking responsibility where none is offered is somewhat pathological IMO. I am sorry you were abused and suffered so much VJ.

"What you choose to focus on is what colors your perception. You want to expose all the negative things about everything... that's an endless journey bro! Exposing the positive things is just as endless... why not go there? Who's sugar coating anything? Life is full of dualities, and most of us know that already." This is effectively true in my experience and I'll add something more. IMO (and IME) focusing solely on "the positive" is akin to a child faced with reality (some of which, yes, is dark), sticking his fingers in his ears, closing his eyes and singing "lalalala" to avoid facing what's actually going on. But by adulthood (if you've reached that point - somewhat debatable in a society which seems to encourage, glorify and sustain pubescent behaviour and thinking and IMO in which religion could have a stake in ensuring this continues ad nauseum- I don't need no "Father in heaven") This is termed a "spiritual bypass" and renders people who may otherwise be in a position to act creatively towards positive ends, ineffectual. A contemporary example is the "positive thinking" fashion in North America. See where that got people... As long I continue to hear victims of abuse and poverty blamed for what is happening, I refuse to adhere to any religion, however interesting the spiritual practices that stem from it may be. I'll take them with pleasure, thank the person or teacher who shared and be on my path if you need me.

"obvious pulls of nature that are based upon the fear of death" How about "based upon the love of life"? I believe love/life "wants" to resolve everything, make it the best possible. I wonder if that's why it kills egos that are badly constructed during single lifetimes. VJ, did yours pop? I suggest this is Tao in action. To desire to go against this flow, is IMO a human (I won't say "ego" but I could I suppose) desire - but is it a desire found everywhere? A desire to escape from the embrace of life and one's relationship to it is actually IMO a pulsion towards death. Techniques (or traditions, so I don't get accused of B-bashing because it could also apply to many secular practices) that attempt this, are IMO taking on the very arduous task of attempting to fight life's desire and smack much more of social control than paths to enlightenment. Where things get confusing IMO is when spiritual tools are used (and one could say "hoarded") by traditions in order to draw in adepts. I won't get into the seemingly sanctioned child sexual abuse (calling your penis a lingam is cute but you're still an old dude sticking it to a child). I am also aware that such things exist in many cultures and traditions so don't assume I'm B-bashing.

Congratulations Jane

I was going to start a thread about cabbage and heads of cabbages and cabbage pickling per the latest issue of "The New Yorker". I found it all very "Taoist". Half in irony and half because I am eating cabbage as I write. Then I found that this thread had already been led down the Wallace n Grommit garden lane and further serious debate about cheese, fermented food and human microbiology now eludes us. Till next time

Thanks Jack. It's a neat read. But I strongly urge you to send such things to others only ever on your own behalf. Why? Because speaking for VJ is possibly not to his benefit, not to your benefit, not to mine either, given I seem to have a few ancestral bones to pick with the guy. Otherwise, how could I possibly explain my aversion? Oh right In affixing his name to your gift I am found biased to throw it in the trash, so now I must FORCE myself to read it. Still, it was a nice thought.

"teaches the enlightened to be better in their enlightenment." So enlightenment is not enough? There's yet another carrot? Oy-vey

Oh, I was hoping this was going to be about food But this part caught my eye "Conclusion: Some humans would be better off if they didn't have a brain capable of rational thought but rather were forced to act/react in a particular way through instinct." How do you suggest we force them then? And why only "some" humans. Mr MH I believe this "conclusion" to be shared by many people as a premise and I don't think I like it.

"Did we give faith and or unity away or is it more like it was it lost, misplaced, divided or stolen?" Good question. I believe it's theft and that many religions participate in this theft in the first place (get back to that Confucian (?) quote about the family...ack) and strive to maintain a separation indefinitely (although they promise reunification after death, big carrot required otherwise no-one would buy it). Concerning Buddhism for example, what is the "end goal"? The end goal is for a person to reach "Nirvana in/is Samsara" IMO a situation in which high equanimity ensures no further emotional involvement with the world and in which the person has renounced their selfhood as "no-self". While I agree that the "false-self" (an illusion anyway so no biggie) should drop off. I suggest that whatever remains, remains as a natural expression of the heart/spirit of the person. That Buddhist practices are hypothesized to effect neurological structure (see Persinger and co.)seems to me to be an issue. Just how far can one go in participating in one's own lobotomy?

I do believe, Mr Shin, that there is/was nothing small about you to begin with (unless you are pretending, in which case you are being ever so dishonest with me and our fellow TTB's ) However. However small you, Mr Shin, considered yourself to be prior to this (my) statement, you are from here on in ""just as small" + the wonderful thing you just shared". Via my scintillating report. Of course it would oblige other TTB's to go check the link to share your expansion to the extent that I have been able, but maybe sufficient could be obtained by taking my fabulous (written) word for it Man, I thought the link is was awesome. I just felt like being a pedantic arrogant hound for a couple of moments. Edited: to add arrogance