Aetherous

Total guessing here... Perhaps it's the body drawing in the breath of God. The nostrils represent duality, but the open mouth represents unity. The inhale represents drawing something in or connecting with something...using the mouth - connecting with unity/the source. The body yawns when the brain needs more oxygen...by doing the yawn the brain is oxygenated = there is greater energy from the source. I don't agree with the Muslims about the need to try and stop a natural yawn (or anything, really), or that it's Satan messing with you. It's a natural mechanism of the body. That this happens during prayer for some people is very interesting. I don't think I experience it, personally.

To say theres no veracity to the story is to admit one's own ignorance of it. This was obviously due to legal pressure.

It's pleasant to look at Westerners.

I'm possible!

It seems to my unenlightened mind that you've opened yourself up to these ideas of being invaded by entities that can drain you. If I were you, I would mentally block myself off from that with all of my might...cultivate the intent to generate a protective force that flows through your entire body and being, which is aligned with the highest divinity, so that you are complete in yourself and blocked off from all parasites.

Which includes literally every one of us... http://highexistence.com/10-spiritual-bypassing-things-people-total-bullshit/

Buddhism is superior...mantrayana, mind training, etc. It has a clear goal, and clear signs of progress. It's useful in terms of making people better. Neidan was a later invention of Daoism, drawn from the waidan tradition. The texts that discuss it are ridiculously cryptic. Its practices vary between schools of thought, so there isn't even a coherent neidan practice we can speak of. If it ever existed as a system of producing xianhood, it appears to not exist today...just a bunch of money makers out there in a sleazy marketplace. It has no mind training, such as becoming a better person...so what is the point? Are there clear signs of progress? No one even really knows what being a xian means...the goal is nebulous, and perhaps doesn't even exist.

That fire rooster is excessively beautiful

Don't do it...hold off on things. Seek guidance about your path.

BKA is back!?!?

About being a landlord...it's always an option to hire a manager.

Not as traditional, but I think investing in a passive income is the absolute best strategy. For instance, owning a franchise of some sort (not without its troubles, but yeah)...or, especially, owning rental property. Another idea is owning land...but it only makes money years later. It's just not something you're likely to lose anything on.

It doesn't matter what your circumstances are, heaven or hell or earth. The way to heaven is in becoming fully virtuous and good (and some other things that probably occur as a byproduct of that).

Liminal Luke versus Clinton? She would lose again.

This thread will serve as an ongoing group study of Khan Academy's free Critical Thinking course, which is a study of Logic. I will post one video each Friday, and plan on writing some notes from the video (might not happen due to having a busy life)...at that pace, the study of the course should end within a year. After that time, I might move on to a Logic textbook for continuing the study here. I've created this thread with the intention to keep it on track, so I applied for Owner Permissions to ensure that's the case. Please keep discussion confined to the lessons in the course. It's totally acceptable to discuss old lessons that we've moved on from. If a conversation starts going off topic, please create a new thread for that conversation. I will edit it out of this thread, because the purpose here is the study of the course material. I invite every Daobum to follow along, and at least watch the short weekly video which just takes a few minutes.

XI

Like what, exactly?

https://newsnuke.com/2017/03/14/wiretapped-president-obama-donald-trump/ Sneaky.

A sure way to destroy your political party's reputation.

Just had a thought...which is really a question: Is the strong aversion to violence (such as for self defense or defending others) a natural human response, or a learned response?

It can get very addicting. Can't wait for the new season!

An important distinction to make regarding no-self, is that our ideas of what that way of being is like can be misleading...even if they're very reasonable from the perspective they come from. It's not necessarily true that we'd become zombies...that's just a guess about what it'd be like. Actually, we already have no self experiences from time to time each day, and we're not zombies. It's just any time that we're in pure experience, and not thinking about ourselves. Here's something to consider: it's a fact that our sense of self is entirely a mental construct. Of course, we're distinct people with distinct personalities (that is not only a mental construct)...but our notions of ourselves are just notions. Now, what if we operated from this real perspective at all times, viewing the construct as only a construct that's taken up as needed? We could still utilize the sense of self, but it wouldn't come with the attachment that believing we are the notion of ourselves comes with. Our perspective would be more accurate. Anyway...it's a huge challenge to try and intellectually understand no-self. Tibetan Buddhism has people experience it through practices...it has to be experiential to be truly understood. What it's actually like is more about liberation, equanimity, and clarity...than it is about being brain dead.

Of course...I'm suggesting that it's not as healthy to do so. The tissues need movement for health.

I think it's only a Buddhist concept that our sense of selfhood is the root of all negativity. For instance, let's say someone insults you in a very demeaning way in public, in front of some people that you're trying to impress...that kind of situation can lead to pretty strong feelings - perhaps of embarrassment, inadequacy, shame, anger, fear, etc. All of these unwanted feelings lead to bad results, like committing negative actions...even experiencing them is bad...the opposite of peace. On the other hand, if a person isn't operating from a sense of self, that could happen to them but they're not trying to defend anything. They could be fully aware that the insulting person is being rude, but it doesn't stir them up at all. There's no place for the negativity to stick in them. They would be just as calm as if it hadn't happened. The theory goes that if you could sever the problem at the root, if you could be liberated from the notion of yourself, then there would only be peace and therefore enlightenment. This is really only an aspect of the skillful means of Buddhist enlightenment, I think. Other forms of enlightenment might depend on not having negative emotions, too, but they don't encourage such mental gymnastics as becoming unaware of oneself as a self. Some others might even expand the territory of oneself as a "skillful means"...for instance, if there is some emotional problem, becoming aware of the scope of the universe and our place in it can kind of ameliorate the intensity of the issue. We're just a speck on earth, one of billions...throughout history, so many trillions of people have lived and died with the same problems as us, or worse. How are we any different? Beyond earth, there are so many planets in just our galaxy...and there are so many galaxies, many bigger than our own. We don't know how many different populated places exist. To really contemplate this and imagine it shows us the signficance of our emotional problem...very small. So this is an example of mind training that maintains the self, even expanding its territory. I think people naturally take up and abandon the sense of self throughout the day. It's not like non-Buddhists have a sense of self that's always there...nor is it like Buddhists have a lack of a sense of self (if they truly did, they'd be a Buddha, I think). When we're listening to a song we love, there's not a sense of self there...it's just the experience. The notion of onself is taken up as is necessary, or as is habitually done.

Which one has the most body movement, and which one has the least? The one with the most movement is the healthiest and the one with little movement is the least healthy. (I'm actually hoping someone knowledgeable will answer the question, it wasn't rhetorical)