Birch

Mr Sin, Have you spent time with those animals? The horses, not the cartoon kind? Your mid-Serbian calling will not be fulfilled by rainbow cartoon "not-animals". Just saying:-)

He's got a point the WBBM - you're literate and not the 'wrong' side of the 'digital divide'. Of course in 14th Century Bhutan, you might have been much better off. Edited: for misplaced consonant.

Well, there's an online church for it (freedom from religion:-)) http://ffrf.org/ - which ironically requires religions (others) to function as a group, but I digress:-) I think what I don't like is other people's religions encroaching upon mine (which isn't really a religion, although it could maybe be classified as one if enough people got into it, maybe, but they wouldn't:-) )this religion is called the rule of the sovereign individual :-) Which of course is quite unfeasible in practice - given there are all these f8cking other people all over the place, and the environment and whatnot. The way I see it, every religion attempts (doesn't always succeed mind you) to deal with this issue of reality not being exactly and only exactly the way one, or one group thinks it ought to be. How it ends up acheiving that can get pretty interesting. And f&ck things up along the way too. Get all those groups together and..well... I think it's how things get f7cked that is important. It can get to totally ridiculous levels like I suspect we are currently seeing. But I'm also almost sure we've seen it already. Edited for synchronicity. Seriously, is it like the article says stateside??? http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2012/02/atheism_in_america_why_won_t_the_u_s_accept_its_atheists_.single.html#pagebreak_anchor_4

I don't think I know any religious people but I suspect their intentions might be quite similar to other people's - except when it comes to religion but i don't know. I think maybe what happens more often is that appeals to god or religion are used as justification for what they want to do or say anyway. Or layer it like a cake with a sticky filing of ideology supported by god icing. I think I'd just have to look at what they're doing, the justification will rarely be satisfactory if appeals are made to god or ideals. But will it be any more satisfactory if appeals are made to 'nature' or 'who I am'? Not sure either. I thought a positive side of this was that religions need constant preaching in order to stick. If you want it unstuck, don't preach and people will presumeably then become 'natural' again.

Profitable to private or public interests? I didn't work on the numbers but I thought they might include: Public - taxes raised minus burden on public services - x lifespan and degradation factor (mental and physical health) - x child producing factor - x child education/raising factor Private - interest raised on loans (like mortgages and credit) - profits on purchases of services and goods - product advertising to others (word of mouth) I'm sure those numbers are already out there. I do wonder whether I have been deemed profitable or not and by whom exactly. I'd like to consider value as something else. Can't buy all of it, like good health for example but can buy some contributing factors, like food for example. Does that mean profits should or shouldn't be made on things that contribute to value?

Kirk had a kid??? If you're that great (which you are:-)) you'll find a way! There's always practice in the world - I'd argue that also has the right stuff in it for progress. But then I would say that because that's how I do it, get it;-)?

I like to think of myself as a plant (no laughing please) that has grown as a result and in cooperation with its environment. An expression of life through form. What do I do when I realise my form limits me? Or does it? Anyway, I believe that I can tell how fast a car is going and use that to cross the road safely. I believe I can tell when food is 'off' and not eat it. I believe I can't do anything about politics, big finance, big food, that sort of thing on any real scale except a very small individual one. I believe that i probably wouldn't know what all of my beliefs are until they get confronted. I think it's probably a better idea to deal with them as they arise. I believe it's possibly utopian to reach a point where one has no belefs at all, but it sounds attractive.

That was very good Snowmonki! Personally I feel that if I didn't read about specific meditations, it just wouldn't occur to me to do them by myself. Your post reminded me of the secret smile which is a very intentional thing to do. Definitely results in the warm fuzzies for me but I don't do it very often. I would also include that a neat thing about some systems is they come with 'instructiions' on what helps when things go wrong. I think that's a good idea to have in there as it provides the student with their own way of taking care of themselves if they mess up. Also agree that a system gives you no place to hide. In fact I suspect my heavy reliance on emptiness meditation has probably contributed to a bit more hiding on my part, but if it has, I can't see it any more anyway.

That seems quite a long time to discuss with someone you think is wrong. I personally think there are bits of bhuddism that are dogmatic but I can't tell for now whether that's an inherent flaw in the process of it through bhuddist practices, whether maybe it's more about my flaws as a person, perhaps it's cultural and bhuddism just doesn't set well over the top of existing conditioned frameworks, maybe there's a point at which no vehicles will work for anyone except the person that created it. Anyway, I enjoy reading the back and forth.

I thought the point of the bhuddist box was that it helped lead people out of all boxes, including itself. What's the point of it then if it's not doing what it's supposed to? I found it quite helpful. But I prefer other things. I wonder if telling someone they are brainwashed would help them break out of it? What if they don't want to? I think my only caveat could be that they avoid going around attempting to brainwash anyone else.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/367/1589/754.full

Bye Cam!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijA2sX75WnU

I could get weird about this stuff and say doing one's best is irrelevant, but from my small appreciation, that all by itself is karma in action. Sorry, i think it's too complicated for me. I don't think it precludes doing one's best. But do you have to know what that is before you do it?

I don't think I do quite as much - ever since it got stripped of its morality. Saying it's 'causality' is fine by me, but I don't really understand that stuff either. Sometimes I think I do. Maybe just listening for it? Then it presents itself for resolution, i reckon that's pretty much all it 'does' and it might do that through me. And it might not. And it might resolve something small very fast and something bigger longer and cut down an entire root in a swoop. Sorry, i don't know but i think it's ok. Would i still say that if it required i be killed in the process? Hmm, not sure. I think it's both eminently personal and impersonal all at the same time.

"might"

Oh crap.

I was thinking about this specific topic and wanted to see what the TTB's think. Alright, say I put my mind on a word, anything really, what are the chances that that word will bring with it a bunch of other words? Will those words be things I recognise as attached to the first one? Why would they be attached? Does this just shed light on conditioned associations or do they have anything to do with 'natural reality' (assuming there is such a thing:-))? What about concepts? Sort of like words but a bit more multi-dimensional. For example, if I conjure up part of a concept of an animal in my mind, assuming it's partially accurate, will the rest of the parts of the concept come with it with equal accuracy? Or would i just be filling in the blanks with errors based on partial knowlege? What do you reckon?

Why would people 'rather' hold on to illusions etc Mr MH? It's often expressed as a preference. As if people were entirely free to pick between their illusion and the truth. I don't know if they are or not.

I got the looser pony. That test sucks!

Hi Ya Mu, I think what I'm getting from your posts is that you're just fed up of being in that 'pioneer' spot this long. That's what I meant. To me, the 'new school' is very much here now and people have already shifted in large numbers from 'curative' or 'maintenance' healthcare to more preventive stuff. I could be living in my own happy little bubble there though I suppose:-) Yeah, why not rename:-) 'Longevity" is a good one:-)

Well, I think Mal explained it quite well:-) BUT, let's say I'd like to 'unrefine' myself - go backwards in terms of cultivation and become 'normal' again. Should be easy enough, right? However, what I really want is absolute tolerance, like Suninmyeyes mentioned about her teacher and TaoMeow mentioned. Gonna need it for when our food becomes filled with wack chi...oh wait...

Outside - yes Containment - yes Will require self-mastery to avoid immediate knee-jerk reaction (i.e. throwing up) - yes Cat, any vinegar? Cheapest, whitest, distilled stuff I'm thinking? I'd ponder the chi of the decaying items. I suppose it depends what they were and if they were organic or pumped to the gills (oh no, maybe there's fish in there !) Excellent poetic metaphor. I'm glad I'm not you - well, technically... Modern 'burial ground' meditation opportunity?

Lest the 'other pit' is forgotten No, I'm a sort of a virtual non-joining type:-) No particular affiliations. Although very very happy to have met and spent time online on the TTBs. I reckon I wouldn't have gotten through certain very strange experiences without it :-) If you change 'fast cars' to 'slow boats', I might reconsider