Birch

Interesting post Steve. I wonder what the tree-spirit figured when it saw a human spirit trying to be something the tree wasn't:-) I'm thinking of the reflective attribution of consciouness to things that are not oneself i.e. because i (be)hold this tree in consciousness it "must" therefore also have/be consciousness. It's IMO a matter of attribution (again) and if you've ever shouted at a computer you'll know what i mean :-) I'm not referring to that kind of "spirit". I'm referring to the individual spirits of the tree and the human (in this case) respectively. You know, the ones that people "meet" in various circumstances.

Well, thinking about beliefs about this stuff. I know the call is to "not think" but it's unfortunate. I'm a bit of a contrary horse:-) Every time i hear something like that i want to do the opposite:-) Same goes with "acceptance" and other hand-me downs:-)

"Since I've begun to understand this on a deeper level, my thoughts about spirit have been diminished greatly." This is what I'm referring to. I don't know how to explain it but i personally take issue with a "path" that drops one off at the station without ever having got on the train. So I'm still wondering...

Interesting thoughts Mr MH. I am equally interested in why some "paths" would seemingly prefer to go straight to undifferentiated consciousness while (to me at least) either throwing out the idea of an individual's spirit or just bypassing it straight into emptiness. It seems to me to be a similar step to the exhortion of ego destruction and "you are not your body" type teachings. I mean clearly, we are incarnate (as the zen Master would prove to you by stamping on your toe) and we have (for all of its conditioning) a personality. I agree with your idea on soul. Jetsun, i liked your suggestions very much.

Jetsun, this is the one I mean! I don't mean undifferentiated "big shen" (I figure) The symbol reminded me of a tai-chi, a snake and a vine :-)

Yeah, I'd heard that one too. So it would seem that generally speaking, humans also have something like 2% of this DNA (or was it neanderthal?) Anyway, my personal interest in this one is 'So what'?. As in 'What's the consequence'? I can hardly wait for some of the articles to come out justifying all round 'crappy' behaviour or treatment of people based on 'pre-history' DNA tracing. Oh wait, it's already on its way with respect to some 'native' peoples. If I recall the study, those being in Australia. Have you had your gene-purity testTM yet?

"There are things you can never get through thought and analysis." Would be good IMO if you said what things Steve, or maybe gave examples? I mean of course, it's the very nature of (some kinds of) thought and (some kinds of) analysis to be unable to give 'insight' or 'perspective' into areas that are not defined by them, given their self-limiting nature. And i find it pretty unfortunate (for myself) that I even understand this. I don't, however, imagine that knowing such a thing suddenly means the (my) doors are flung open to capacities beyond the realms of thought and analysis. At least, not so far much. Edited for typo.

I was being partially flippant and then attempting both a joke and a criticism about how religions can have their origins in the very experience of life itself. The philosophy about 'where I am' in the experience of my life, which 'side' of duality etc has IMO a common basis in the formation of religious dogma and doctrine. And of course you can "make up a religion" :-) Quite a few people have:-) You just need some handy transposable symbols and enough of a nod to real human life experiences, maybe some benefits incurred and, ok, maybe a bunch of other stuff, like bringing children into the world under the precepts of the religion in question, maybe some (nods to Ralis) double-binds, maybe some ca4h and maybe some culty-ish techniques. Hell I wouldn't start one, it's far too much work! I think 'good with people' is probably on the religion-starter's resume :-)

I guess I should have posted my thing about waking up in the middle of dreams here. There's a story about a guy who practices lucid dreaming so much that at one point he can't tell 'inside' which state he is. I don't think I'd enjoy that very much. It was bad enough when I had to struggle to realise I was dreaming those times. I think dreams have their 'natural' purpose too - although what that is is a good debate:-) It's like living an "unenlightened" life. There's still a 'natural' purpose to it. Not that I consider myself enlightened BTW and as far as I can tell I don't want to (otherwise I would have already).

That's interesting Mark. I know that if I travel a lot (not vacation, where it's the opposite) I prefer to stay in places that pretty much look the same all over, to avoid that 'Where the hell am I?' moment that can really give me a start upon waking. When dreaming, there are also points at which it's not obvious to me that I am dreaming. So I sort of 'wake up' inside the dream and go 'phew it's a dream, this is ok then'. Sometimes it takes a bit of effort, a struggle ensues to 'wake up' inside the dream. So I'm wondering if we tacitly 'know' we are dreaming and just go ahead with it (because otherwise we'd wake up).

It's a good question. I think if they have a role in the wider "spirituality" of the world (maybe even just keeping knowledge of practices...) then maybe they have an important one. I guess that could be pretty hard. Do they have more of a "spiritual" role like they're fighting off evil "stuff" before it gets to lay people? I reckon that would be hard. Maybe for some monks etc there is no sacrifice and they just get out of the race, off the wheel and the farm or the factory and indeed have an "easier" time of it. Maybe for others there's a great sacrifice. I dunno. I read somewhere that in some instances the monastic practices get so hardcore that you practically need not to work and feed yourself etc.

Where did we (you) get this 'I'm stuck here' idea? I dunno, but I oscillate between that 'I'm stuck here' idea and quite a variety of what I'll conservatively term as 'woah, wait a minute' ideas and experiences. I won't get into it all too much, but really IMO/IME attempting a societal (or religulous) lockdown on any of it is just asking for trouble:-) In ways that seem to me to be quite well described in ledgers like TTC. IMO other ledgers (includes TTC) seek to exploit it- amd therein lies the major f*ckup IMO/IME.

Seth, I do agree that no-one needs to stay anywhere that doesn't serve them...until maybe they've gotten to a point where they can effectively serve others? It's a gray gray gray area. Even getting to that point where one can serve without it being fraught. Of course if a given TTB teacher/practitioner is off teaching folks and doing stuff generally that effects the people in the world and they don't have time for such a forum then no worries. But then I do wonder about motive. Hell TTB's is IMO/IME one of the few open, free (as in non-paying) non-cult forums for practices 'out there' (if there are others that are not affiliated nor cult-ish please do tell :-))But I think there is a problem if pretty consistently folks who get to 'certain levels' determine that a) there's nothing left to learn at TTB's and maybe no-one to teach and c)they'd be better off elsewhere I'm sorry to see Blasto bugger off as I like the man:-)

I'll second the advice on clearing/dissolving/removing obstacles prior.

Pretty much! Which is why you can't argue with it and it doesn't matter (well it does to buddhists, but see why they end up laughing?)I read something neat the other day about there being an issue with things that can't be falsified. Karl Popper, I think. Anyway, as far as I can tell, Taoism doesn't even go there, as far as i can see. You can see Tao because what you see is Tao seeing (or something like that, I keep getting confused with the differences because people seem to like to point out the similarities so much on here). Anyway, it can't ALL be the same "stuff" with just different ways of looking at it, can it now? The reason i like Taoism is because of the almost magical things that come out of it. Buddhism has been pared down so much that it might as well be anything else. No fun, except maybe those Varajana (sp?) people.

Yep, this is IME/IMO the "biggie". Work that one out and you could probably start a religion:-)

Anamatava, I'd need to dig around for the links I like. OT, what is it with "spirtual" websites (not all of them;-)) that they seem to go all out tacky with things? Enough lotuses already! Isn't there some kind of web feng shui? And what of techniques like Ya Mu's of layering in qi to texts and such? Or putting magic symbols on things? Is that, ur, "ethical"?

Pamela, what about some of the other interpretations of experiences that suggest that the experiencer's belief-system is the interpretive driver? As in, centuries ago, folks would have seen more old-school saints and stuff to go with the beings and lights. Now we have more UFO "material" to draw from in culture And movies- hence the new apparitions? I'm really interested. Do the beings share dimensions with others that many people can get to? Do they just visit individuals?

What worked for me was a really sympathetic therapist who acknowledged that what i went through was wrong and then suggested that the biggest revenge would be to live not driven from any of those things. Did not require any participation or admission on anyone else's part. Also: - KAP - Homeopathy - Emptiness meditation - A good supportive forum of people doing similar stuff DIY:-) - Lately, the Yuen method. Pretty weird stuff but seems to be effective on connections to resonant BS

Well I'd quite like to hear the rant:-) I personally found the chakra stuff got more physical stuff "out there" than other things I've tried. I found it (KAP) to be a rollercoaster of a "ride". And I'm quite happy things have calmed down :-) I think yes that some people have their "head" in the way more than others. I also suggest that approaches that take what sounds like a purely physical issue like Chinese organ methods have some "lost in translation" issues. You know where a liver is not just "the liver". It's all the chi that goes with it. I suggest this is a way to acknowledge the person's feelings and circumstances in a way that avoids conflit but tells everyone "ok, we know what's going on here" (Aside from what seems to be a real physical correlation between organs and feelings etc. Maybe one day the West will have enough neurobiology under it to agree?) When we offer pills for sadness, we forget the person who is sad and how that sadness comes about. I think Hopononono is another one that will attribute a child's sickness for example to it's wider family. No getting out of responsibility for anyone, including the child. Abuse is a tough topic.

Jetsun, IMO these things are to do with distance and using people's attention to help them look at things in a different way that they can work with. It's one of those oblique methods that uses resonance to resolve things. IMO it's up there with CBT. Getting people to change their thoughts and beliefs head on runs into that tricky issue of identity and i think we know how far people (including myself) will go to defend it. Have a look at some of the "persuasion" literature out there. An especially scary one is "Split-second persuasion". For me, this stuff is the "new witchcraft" :-)

4

I shudder now when people suggest how one should govern one's mind. That i ought to govern it and no one else should and that i should be mindful enough to discern the difference as to sources of thoughts, mistakes in my attributions etc is a fair suggestion. But shouldn't it stop there? IMO practices should lead people to independence and choice in the way they think. That's about it.