Birch

Oh NICE! Good topic Twinner :-) Righto, my take is to not confound reality with (all) models of reality and/but to realise what our models do to reality (given, last time I looked, we were part of it:-)/it. So there is this 'is' idea which it seems many would like to lay claim to. I suppose that might be part of your question? Personally, I have to seriously wonder why anyone in their right minds would want to define it (reality) due to the huge responsibility that that places upon them. To borrow and (badly) paraphrase - the question is real :-)

Sounds good! Although all I seemed to have learned in geo class was how long it would take me to die if I was in the centre of a nuclear explosion, a few things about marshes vs stone and which countries on the globe (at the time) were pink vs blue. What level does one have to get through before all the stuff you mention kicks in? Edit: it's uncannily like Taoist alchemical practices :-)

Can I jump in? Yes I can :-) Alright. My very personal (from practice) understanding is that the self-identification of a deity is intended to cultivate specific attributed qualities - not necessarily to show as Shinzen suggests that the person(ality) is arbitrary but to provide a template for equilibrium (my suggestion). As is 'feeding the demons' (counter-practice IMO/IME to 'forgiveness'). Which is also why K-related practices require a structure and that orbits are micro-cosmic before anything else. My 2cts.

Watered down is fine ! As long as it's still water :-)

Aaron, I promise I won't scream or get squeamish or anything Still, I'm apt to disagree with you on the comparison. People are not frogs - or mice or ants or lizards for that matter (which makes me wonder how they get adopted as models for people, but I digress:-)). So defining the problem in that way doesn't seem to me to be a good idea unless we can really get sufficient, provable alignment with any given model. It really does (to me) mean a very scientific approach that takes everything into account (and not just any one 'branch' of science like economics or ecology). So to start it, one would have to immediately become multi-disciplined. IMO. Hence the 'education' problem. Edit: typo. and spelling. sorry

Another great story! Seems today on the street that all manner of dogs had me labelled as cat food. Lucky (good name for a dog!) they were on leads and/or very small:-) Being 'spiritually mistaken' is a pretty consistent fear of mine. What if I do end up to be one of those people that Ya Mu refers to as 'depends on who you are' who is categorically unable to progress in any useful (except to the wrong folks) manner?? What did the medicine man do/say after the shark issue was pointed out? It ain't easy. Oh yes, I forgot to add that the 'third' item being 'modified' is not fair play. Thanks again to Noelle :-)

Well, aside from my egoistic overjoy that I actually 'got a point' somewhere in a discussion I know nothing about (that's very bad of me, but scr*w it, I'm feeling generous with myself:-)) my further point was that posing the problem itself was an issue. What I mean is its very definition conditions the conditions of its resolution (if there is to be one). So in other words, defining it as 'a problem' in the first place is already setting it up. How and why and when could people (aka 'population') ever be a problem? And if so, a problem to who exactly?

I haven't checked out the UN stuff. What I'm wondering today is this thing about the terms of the problem. It looks (or is made to, I'm damned if I can reach total causality on this one) that "overpopulation" is the cause of all this awful poverty and hunger and violence but what if it were actually the reverse? As pointed to by some of what has been posted so far. Societies' populations drop once they reach some kind of level (is it financial?) I agree that there is an "anti-thinking" tendency on this forum but i also think it's just not obvious (depending on what schooling one got - or despite it:-)) to go into discussions like these with the idea that one knows the answers. Hell, even knowing what questions to ask is hard.

Shift? Maybe. Hopefully you meant it was a "good" thing:-) Ok, the reason I referred to all of those authors (some of whom I am happy to count as TTB's and I do include "authoring" texts and websites as "authors":-)) is because MY reading of them was that they were the clearest and most coherent stuff i could read about kundalini and development of awareness (and consequences of the latter) that i could get my paws on. I chose to link them all together because they (mostly) lined up with my own experiences. Also, they were not scary K stories. There are lots of those:-) I guess i chose my reading:-) I suppose i should have been more pointed about that when referring them (for other people it might be other stuff). BTW, no-one is obliged to go through unwanted altered states and there's nothing wrong with being in control (or mastery even:-)) My 2cts

I'm referring to the interview with Mark, if you read it further down. Before y'all get hot under the coller about energetic release and/vs orgasm, I'd read Ken Wilbur, a bit of Foucault (because it's really tough reading), Reich, and our (my) favourite Drew Hempel. And snowmonki here knows the stuff:-) As does Witch, but she hadn't formalized her ability last time I checked. Point being, release and surrender is release and surrender and if you're feeling it "more" somewhere that then causes you to lockdown then it ain't really release and surrender. None of the bums seem to get all iffy when their heart puts out, do they? Edit: I hadn't forgotten Trunk but he doesn't seem to make it quite as "evident" as some of the others i mentioned. Sorry Trunk!

My 2cts = know yourself. Just because your mind can "take you there" doesn't IMO/IME mean it's where you ought to go:-) And whatever anyone says. Do your own discovery :-)

Right, so no worries in that culture:-)

Were the mind-states more or less pleasant than what you'd call the others? My take on this one is to honor them all equally as each has something for me in it. If for example i never get unhappy then i might not change the circumstances I'm in (or my attitude for that matter). Add that some of them are not places to engage with other people from. Hopefully the guy in the video would be able to wipe the grin off at a funeral:-)

Ok. Thanks! Does the UN ratify means of both not getting above the manageable amount and getting to the target amount? And/or does it ratify intent only? And are all people represented in the UN? I think from memory they aren't. There are lots of ways those circumstances could impact what ends up happening. Does the UN specifically "ban" certain types of population-reduction (because in all cases, it looks like reduction is what the goal is)? Are there consequences for nations that don't do things certain ways? Are there quotas? Sorry for all the questions. I guess i should go find out:-)

That's quite a few questions you have in one post! How about we make a thread for each of them? Did the UN use the word 'sustainable' rather than 'manageable'? If so, what was meant by it? By the UN. Not what is understood. I don't know what the function of the UN is. I really don't. It looks from where I'm sitting like a big mess. Most things do:-) Effecting the lifestyle of the masses = quite some thing. It's a good topic IMO:-) I don't know anything about 'destined'. Nothing.

But you said 'destined'. So what are you trying to get at? What makes people achieve and develop breakthroughs? The idea of a 'manageable population' makes me shudder. What does 'manageable' mean??

That's a good idea! I wonder if Mexican universities offer similar and what (if any) differences there might be between them. Isn't internet great ?

Thanks for bringing it back to life :-) I read through it again and recalled a chat I had with Hundun a while back. I know he's showering praise on his teacher Mark but I found him (Hundun) pretty 'something'. I don't think we discussed 'sprituality' even and post our 'meeting' I was awash with what I can only describe as more "loving feeling" than I'd ever known prior. I went to see the link about Mark that Creation had posted. I found it kind of strange that a 'project' to 'awaken' as many people possible would be instated. Hundun, Seth, others what's your take on this 'project'? There are so many different 'projects' for us all, it seems to me :-) I'm getting yey close to annoyed with all of them:-) Edit: Project name "what I’m calling the Catalina Project "

I talked to a Mayan tourist guide (who was Mayan) who talked about meteors as the cause of the cenotes. He also mentioned that the water in them (which was the only source of drinking water) was responsible for calcium 'overload' in the population leading to all kinds of issues (not least stunting bone growth - 'why we are short' ;-) and causing kidney-stones ) It's always interesting (IMO/IME) to find out where people's ideas of things come from. I hadn't read/heard the acid rain explanation and I was so taken with the meteor story that I didn't bother to cross-examine the Mayan:-) I suppose I should have. Where did you get your information Encephalon? I'd like to go check it out.

It's hard for me to say really. My 'K' experience is of the 'outer' and 'inner' 'shit hitting the fan in a very short period of time. Both inner and outer circumstances were very 'real'. I can't say which 'side' of it was any of my doing. Put it this way, IMO, getting on the 'right' side of duality is a big deal:-)

Thanks for posting Noelle! I have a banner from Nepal (via the US) that has 4 vajras (crown-looking things) of different colours that then spin (much like the 3 colours your video had) into those colours plus more much like the spin in your video. I've also seen the 'Tai-chi' with colours other than black and white. I don't know enough about those to comment. Chi-dragon, I am suprised at you! I had you figured for a full-on materialist given all your talk about chi being 'air' and naught else. An interesting turn!

Aaron, as far as I can tell, the 'overpopulation issue' is a projected problem based on current population numbers and current growth and so while it's probable, it's not inevitable. Acting as if it is inevitable (and not, for example, self-limiting) could IMO lead to some really heinous stuff, such as your imagined law-enforced child-limit policy. The TTC mentions (to badly paraphrase) that if you can get the family 'right' then you can get the rest 'right'. It doesn't seem to mention what 'right' means and I suppose the invitation here is that 'right' is to be examined in context and through experience. We have quite well-documented results on various 'policies' when it comes to population control (including genocide and one-child policies). Shouldn't we be able to look at them all in turn and in context and decide what's 'right'? Oh, and not just 'right' for some of us and not those other people.

Great post TaoMeow! Hehe, I've often wondered why some "spiritual" folks take up with the old-school language;-) More seriously, IMO your post is very pointed in a direction that i find interesting.

Which makes sense to me.

Well this is exactly what I'm referring to. If i understand the writing properly what is being said is that a belief in spirits is what is important. Not the truth of them. It also looks like the recording of events is considered proof enough of their occurrence.