Sherman Krebbs

I read the liber null part, skimming the last sections Not having any background on the subject, other than my own experiences, I thought it was super interesting. I have yet to summon anything : ), but the general concept, that through meditation, one can connect/understand/influence the realm beyond the limits of ones own realm of phenomenon resonated with me. Keeping with the thread theme, the enlightened potential in this case seemed to be first coming to an understanding of what your will is (be it good or bad), and then allowing that will to manifest in the universe. Is that correct, or is there more to it? That to me felt very similar to the principle of authenticity in the context of Bön, although maybe more clearly stated. Some of the day-to-day advice was good too. Somewhere it said remove an aspect of your daily routine and do something completely different, which I think is good advice regardless of the context.

Thanks! Emotion seems to be hardest to "recognize" and release in this context. Sometimes am not sure how to regard emotion within the pheonmenonal realm, or really what emotion is. Happiness, sadness, anger, fear, anxiety, anger. Suppose there are all just the same thing. or maybe there is just pain and no pain. Something sterling said the other day really stuck with me though, that its the story we make of these things not the things themselves, as they are self liberating.

I find I am able to do this until I'm not. Its like you recognize something, then once you think you've achieved it, you forget it, and the boulder rolls back down the hill. Daily mediation seems to be a key (for me at least), though once the boulder starts rolling its hard to stop. Also, I find working on computers puts a huge strain on this recognition, as it inherently requires your attachment to the abstract elements of the mindstream that you are trying to release.

This made my day. Thanks!

Exactly. English is great because it is so easy to equivocate. : ) I would probably rephrase your definition as Faith is an acceptance of a thing as existing, which falls outside the realm of experience. There is more happening and influencing the phenomena beyond the individual's perception. This is might be a tautology. Faith is different. Faith is the acceptance of the story or cause of the happening and influencing. The story or cause of the happening and influencing is an abstraction in our mind, which we accept to exist independently from the mind and experience. Whether the thing exists or not, is not the issue. The issue was whether Faith implies that the thing does not exist. At a very minimum, Faith implies uncertainty. It implies the possibility of the thing abstracted not existing. To have faith, one must first assert that it may be true or it may be false that there is a particular thing happening and influencing the phenomena beyond the individual's perception. In other words, if someone tells you to have faith, they are saying we are not really sure if it is true or false, but this is what we accept to be true, as opposed to simply accepting it to be true in the first place. its the difference between saying I have faith that xzy is real vs xzy is real. The second premise of my original argument "if something is, it need not be held on Faith" is the point. If you experience something, live it. You don't need to have faith in it to do so. If I sit in the local church and am moved while listening to organ music and singing Hymns (or at least attempting to; they are in a different language), listening to sermons, sharing a sense of community with locals, etc. there is no additional story or cause for that experience that needs to be accepted as faith. It just is. I guess I am objecting to the term faith, as it implies untruth (or at least potential untruth) in the very real experiences people have, whether they be in a church, synagogue, mosque, forest, nungalis garden, etc.

I know nothing of magic, and have only had my own delusional experiences. I am having one right now. I blame the black magic curse I am under. I guess the point was that if Nungali has experienced magic, he does not have to have faith in it. If you have experienced god, you do not have to have faith in that. If I have experienced a pinacolada slurpee from 7-11 (it was a long time ago) I do not have to have faith in that either.

Something is or it is not. If it is, it need not be taken on faith. Therefore, (via transposition), if it is taken on faith, it is not.

Myth or parable? There is a big difference between understanding a story as a metaphor to describe some complicated aspect of experience and believing that someone was literally gobbled up by a big fish and managed to escape after three days. Moral: dont give up or you might get metaphorically f----d by a giant tuna.

I thought @Nuralshamal's story about the lady and his toothbrush the other day was pretty falsifiable, rational, scientific evidence on magic which does not require faith. When someone black magic's your toothbrush you don't have to take it on faith. : ) I for one don't think there is falsifiable, rational, scientific evidence of anything. There is only experience. Prove to me the color green. You can come up with an abstract theory about quantum particles flopping around at each other in the void. But what I experience as green is something else entirely. I don't need faith to prove what green is, so long as its given a name (there is the bizarre thing where people cant see colors unless they are given a name. There was a whole tribe in africa that could not see blue because the had no word for it. Look it up. I believe this to be true of all experience. ) I for one have experienced and seen aural disturbances, which I have never thought of as pull a dead rabbit out of your hat magic per se. I dont need faith to know that I have experienced them. I even made paintings of some of them. You may have experienced deeply spiritual things. Those experiences do not require faith. Its the abstract story that you tell yourself around the experience that requires the faith. And on that point doesn't faith imply that the the thing itself is patently false. Why does someone have to have faith in some theory or a belief, rather than just being the thing that the purport to have faith in. I dont get it. Though I have recently realized that I might have a black magic problem, so you may give my words the weight they deserve.

not as the crow files gradually to the sea frothy current flows

Journey never ends bones crunching and palms bloodied the boulder ascends

Music cannot be comprehended through an analytical scrutiny of the individual notes and patterns thereof. It must be listened to. The music is what you hear. and it fucking rocks.

Seems like the term "soul" can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. My own conception is that existence is all "soul," or at least all "soul" in the way most people would understand that term. The corporal world only exists in the mind (largely just keeping us from bumping into things) masking the deeper fabric in which we exist. Just my conception, which is conceptual as any other. Deeper existential reality can't really be understood by the mind, but with practice, diligence and virtue, it can be experienced and realized. Just a few of my own personal feelings on the matter.

My view: All virtuous practices result in progressive steps towards Buddhahood, even if they do not lead all the way there in of themselves. https://84000.co/translation/toh128:

Not true of all humans: My beard grows to my toes, I never wears no clothes, I wraps my hair around my bare, and down the road I goes. -silverstein

My theory: there are no dimensions. Here is my picture: .

My recommendation: Vegetarian + no sugary foods, except fruits (i.e. no candy, donuts, milkshakes etc.). You can eat as much as you want and you will lose weight (though you'll never really feel full). Plus you will feel great. Eat lots of plums/prunes and apricots, especially in the beginning, to keep your system in order.

Mine is a gopher -- I did not pick it. Happened across this quote yesterday: "Vajrayana Buddhism [...] has no future in the West because of deeply conditioned (genetic or cultural) assumptions about the nature of reality and because it entails a transmogrification of western social values and lifestyles, and an assimilation of rituals, practices and yogas too alien for anything resembling the original to eventuate." -Everything is Light (Forward), Keith Dowman I think I agree with this. Most will never be able to accept or understand it (and will probably object to the notion that it is something to be accepted and understood), and that is probably okay.

I though the Meditation Health book suggestion was good. To be clear, it was not Cleary's meditation instruction, and we dont know how many cigars he smoked per day, nor the volume of brandy he put in his morning coffee. It was just a sampling of treatises from actual doaist practitioners, with practical meditation instruction. The treatises themselves were written in modern language, which Cleary translated to plain English. It was not translation of an ancient text, so there is the benefit of not having to read between the lines and speculate as to what esoteric ancient metaphors (weird things like like the "slapping the dead goat of the king from the northern plateau") mean in modern language.

Its not necessary to prove all Buddhist wrong in order to affirm whatever it is you believe.

Are you saying that a non-dual philosophy is categorically invalid, or are you just questioning sterling's reasoning for believing/endorsing it, i.e. based on his own experience and his interaction with his meditation instructors? If the former, why and what philosophy do you believe has more merit?

it means you are one human bean. your thoughts and your body and your feelings are all part of one amazing thing--you. it means that you are supposed to keep acting like your five year old self, without worrying too much about it.

Deleting this.

mmm, look these Fava beans.... Oh jeeze mister... suppose I need to go get some coffee. Kids, quick...

You two fight like a married couple (questioning the usefulness of this back and forth for the rest of the shopping mall)