Karl

You don't know 'balanced reasoning' because, like Neo in the Matrix, you have never actually used it. When and if you begin, it will feel like muscles that have never been used, or eyes that have never been opened. If you can see voodoo economics then there is a comparison. Indeed there is a comparison to be made in every single thing, from a grain of sand to the universe. Any serious, methodical and reasoned approach will bear fruit, but you have to be aware of your own bias and vulnerability to propaganda. How thoughts run in deep strata, subtle flows, moods as fleeting as a moth on a summers night, or the kiss of a mayfly on the surface of a pond. Question everything, unlearn, go back to being a child. What, what, what, where, where, where, when, when, when ? Be aware that you have stopped asking and have assumed that you know and that the information you have is correct. Begin the process again.

I'm not at all painting learning from others as a weakness. That's your false egoic perception cooking off. Instead of trying to see the truth you are switching to defence and trying to win because you think that this is a competition. A contest. You are fighting a war with yourself, see it, know it. A baby relies on its parents to feed and care for it. There is a point at which the baby is no longer a baby and will switch on its own caring skills. I also have many thousands of books that I have learned from and I don't know of any another way to absorb concentrated mental nutrition-but not all of it is good. Eventually we walk on our own and can hopefully discriminate good mind food, from bad. This can be frightening. Like a bird thrown out of the nest, someone genuinely searching will reach the only conclusion possible. That, ultimately, there is only ourselves and we are alone in the world. No one can show us the way, there is no red pill we can take other than the decision to simply wake up and see what we have been so afraid to know-that for us, there are no 'others' that, in a sense, everybody else is an illusion. The only good mind food is that which we grow and tend for ourselves, otherwise we live by another's mantra. That's a decision we have to make. I could say 'it's all good' and therefore just keep going, if that satisfies you, but you have specifically asked me to comment. Do I ignore you ? tell you only what you wish to hear ? Agree wholeheartedly ? Lie ? If you want honesty that is what I'm giving, if you do not wish to know, then do not ask and that will save us both a lot of time.

Or longer. However, it remains as the cleanest, most consistently reliable form of power to date. Germany went back to the only real alternative-coal. In the UK we are trying to broker a deal to get China/France to build nuclear power plants as we are looking increasingly vulnerable to outages because we have not updated our coal fired plant. So called 'green alternatives' are not feasible. We are simply filling investors/land owners pockets with tax payer money to fund a the kind of intermittent power supply that will always require back up, short term gas plants by the thousand. These short term plants are highly inefficient and have a very limited lifespan compared with long term power plants. The grid system is currently unsuitable for carrying such varying, spasmodic loads and would require an enormous upgrade which no one is prepared to fund, or tolerate. Despite the ideology behind wind and solar being a good one, it is totally impractical and uneconomical except when used in areas where no advanced power generation is either feasible, or technologically possible. Again, this comes down to the best way to allocate resources and that is the free market. It is the free market which has the best chance of finding safe alternative power and not governments trying to pick winners. I probably like the idea of nuclear power even less than you do. I've been mildly irradiated once in my lifetime and have seen how state owned nuclear facilities merrily pollute the environment whilst claiming everything is under careful scrutiny. However, if we wish to move from dirty coal and expensive oil/gas that is the only option. Whilst renewables can make a small contribution, it will be at a very high cost and likely to produce more pollution in the long run due to the nature of the back up generation required. As yet we haven't solved anything, but a free market with enforced private ownership of land/sea/air would produce a proper cost for the use of fossil fuels by pushing the cost onto polluters. As costs rise it will bring greater opportunity for inventors to create things we cannot even conceive of. What steam and the diesel did were done by privateers and not state decree. That's how we will move forward.

Big, expensive, mistake with poor use of scarce resources. Nuclear and gas are far more effective options. Individual purchase of solar cells/wind power for those who can utilise them is fine. No subsidy for those purchases.

LOL I remember that one well. Always pick up the abandoned pennies to show you want money. There is some truth in it. If you are the sort of person that hopes to win the lottery instead of working, then you get engaged with the practical effort of expending energy to gain energy. If you are the sort of person that sees money as 'the route of all evil' then it can train your mind to obliterate that thought by repetition.

Yep, all of that. Now you have made a credible choice in that you are searching for truth and not blindly following a star. Now, you see there, you began using reason, but you still depend on an instruction book somebody else wrote. Good though that book may indeed be, it is still someone else's ideology which you have subscribed to with some discrimination, but it is not the whole of them, it's an abridged edition. You don't want to be them of course and so you apply the individual that is Steve. When you are ready you can throw away that crutch and begin making your own book from scratch. It will be an unabridged Steve and entirely whole. You will then be able to go places and understand things in an independent way. You will have assumed full responsibility for your life and actions which will free you from plagerism and self doubt.

Ignore it- that's the point of self inquiry. It shows you that you are already free. Neither Gods, Fate or luck control you. You have free will and intellect. See, most people build a story about who they are, they build castles in the sky which revolves around mental attachment to false concepts. It builds a false ego which then becomes the person-an alter ego which is imbued with all sorts of ideologies. Now, meditation helps seperate out the thoughts, but sometimes they are so deeply entrenched it requires sterner stuff to get the separation necessary to see it. The problem is, the mind can often re attach to the method of trying to unlock the false ego. You think you moved on, but it was just transference to a new alter ego. That is why I am now sceptical of the value of hard core practices. I'm not saying they can't be helpful, but they can hinder. Once the alter ego is seen for what it is, then it serves no more purpose, but here's the thing. How can you know when you got there? So, now, back up a bit and realise that the only tool in the box to do this is the intellect. The wheel has to stop somewhere and something must be trusted. Deny intellect and you are ever denied.

Intellect is it. It has no location, or dimension. It is reality for the person thinking it, but it isn't an object apart from that person. Awareness is the active part of consciousness, but it cannot be aware of itself, but it can be focuses on diffuse. It is the minds eye. They are two sides of the same coin. Awareness does not exist if there is no consciousness and as consciousness needs to be conscious of something, then awareness is that component that arises. There are subtle levels of both. Awareness is obviously prior to thought. The universe exists independently of your conscious awareness of it. You only have the one tool and that is intellect. You are using it to relate your experiences and integrate concepts. It's pointless to use the intellect to deny the intellect. What did you learn from self inquiry ? Didn't you discover there was no base to thoughts, no origin ?

I'm sure they can.

Is it Doc Watson ? I play guitar and drums but not very well. I got a few meals and beers from ex band mates trying to get me back on the throne though so that's always a result, but the answer was always Nooooooo.....wild horses wouldn't make me do that again. I discovered that being John Bonham is much harder than it seemed on paper. Lead guitarists are sulky prima donnas that always want their amp to be louder than anyone else, bass players are authoritarian maniacs, singers always think they sound a thousand times better than they do, the rhythm guitarist is taken for granted and everything else is the drummers fault. Too fast, too slow, too many fills, not enough fills, playing too loud, playing too quietly-always first to arrive, last to leave and never an offer to help cart the kit in and out of the car which is parked 100 metres down the road and it's raining again.

There is a huge money making industry for people that believe in the law of attraction. Lots of people happy to take your money in exchange for hope. Affirmations, visualisations, circles of confidence, hypnotism are all used. In the war people wore lucky underpants and survived despite very low odds....so, it must have been the underpants ;-)

There is also the other side of mushrooms: "The role of drugs in the exercise of political control is also coming under increasing discussion. Control can be through prohibition or supply. The total or even partial prohibition of drugs gives the government considerable leverage for other types of control. An example would be the selective application of drug laws permitting immediate search, or "no knock" entry, against selected components of the population such as members of certain minority groups or political organizations. But a government could also supply drugs to help control a population. This method, foreseen by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World (1932), has the governing element employing drugs selectively to manipulate the governed in various ways." ~ Louis Jolyon West, Hallucinations: Behavior, Experience, and Theory. 1975. p. 298.

Thoughts arise within the conscious awareness of them. No consciousness then no thoughts. No consciousness then no awareness. Consciousness and awareness are bound up inseparably with the functioning, living material body. If you are trying to examine thoughts then nothing will be found. It's a logical loop. Consciousness can never be conscious of itself. What you are doing is non relational self inquiry which leads to a belief in the primacy of consciousness as that from which all reality is created. In effect you believe that you are the creator of all that you perceive-for some that means they believe they are God.

Where are these independent spirits devoid of bodies ? Produce them or provide the evidence for their existence. I don't need to 'sell' reality. Reality is right in front of you. It is the method you use to try and prove your concepts. Now you see Bud has gone a step further in the world of mystic ignorance. Not only does he not want to prove the 'plans of God' you talk about because it creates questions. Just like any good cult member he tells you that God is beyond any possibity of your knowing God. Just practice and believe, never question anything other than those that question your faith. In days gone by the next step would be to but the disbelieving heretic to death. Power of man, not power of God. You create your own prison with faith. Let it go.

Jesus did not create Christianity or the church, he expounded a philosophy and gathered disciples. Are you suggesting that the Spanish Inquisition, the divine right of Kings and the rape of little boys followed the teachings of Jesus ? I haven't read the entire history of Buddah, but please show me where he specifically created an organised religion called Buddhism ? That is not to say that the founding principles of their philosophies, or indeed the behaviour of their acolytes is entirely without merit, but it has certainly been entirely representative of exactly the kind of Poor moral standards that are distributed across the human race- however, the power wielded by many of these churches could create far more damage and misery than individuals could alone. Teachings are fine if you are able to read them. I'm not talking here about the more simple kind of reading, but the in depth type of reading which discriminates and questions.

Then you would need to produce the evidence to support your statement. Until you can, then it isn't. When you can, it is.

Both cities are beautiful. It's hard to know where to begin. You are really going to be visiting living museums. There really isn't a place to turn without bumping into a cathedral, coliseum, fountain, architectural delights abound. You will be spoilt for choice. I think you might want to spend a bit of time chilling, people watching, eating, drinking, walking.....the food is fantastic(there is a famous ice cream parlour near the Trevi fountains-take an evening walk like the Romans do). Why not take in an Opera ? Bit different. Not sure about football as I don't really follow it. Pick up a rough guide, but really, a city plan and your feet are all that is needed. I have never visited the Vatican as it's usually very busy with long queues and some fairly tacky plastic icons festoon every inch of the area surrounding the entrance. The coliseum is one of the highlights, but the whole city will keep you fabulously entertained. Enjoy. Try not to eat just Pizza (good though it is).

If you wish.

I would define it as that which defines a man beyond the purely physical. Values, virtues, beliefs. The tree is known by the fruit it produces. Therefore man is known by his actions and nothing beyond that can be inferred.

When did Buddah define Buddhism ? Did Jesus define Christianity ? Organised religion sucks. Choose your own mind, be your own priest.

Only by their own definition. I'm a cat but for my continual delusion that I'm human. Damned hair balls on the touch screen.

Depends how you define spiritual realm Steve and you have every right to be argumentative :-)

Luckily they have several hundred coal fired power stations with which to charge them.

Why are you asking me that question. That's rhetorical. What I can prove I can prove. Everything else is learning. Despite what you might think I get a lot out of these arguments if they don't devolve into slagging matches, or posting other people's opinions as proof of concept. You patently wish to persevere with your argument with me, so you are getting something out of the transaction.

Same thing. What is = reality. That's why it's necessary that it is proven, otherwise it remains a theory and not reality and therefore not 'what is'.