snowymountains

Please be aware, per GDPR people have a statutory right with regards to their privacy both "in the present" and "several years in the future". Privacy actually needs to be as strong as if conversations were "private between two people". Please clarify what you meant about what people do not get. Also please explain why you perceived GDPR compliance to be a "legal threat".

It's for anything you wish, up to you, but the options in dwai's poll are behaviours during debating - ie almost none applies for a thread you read or even to a thread where you ask questions either. A disagreement implies some form of debate/external behaviour taking place. In the role of an observer, you're not engaging the other person, which is fine ofc, but it's not the same.

The way it's phrased, the rules are different, the analogue with the closest rules is a public place for debate, where people would see each other again, debate about similar topics but have separate private lives. Otherwise, realistically, who would bother debating someone they don't agree with e.g. on the bus stop 😁 Yes, it depends on intention as well. E.g. to take it to the extreme, for the sake of clarity, a doctor helping addicts might not label internally to be able to help the addicts but they may label when seeing exact same behavior that addict may have in a different context, eg see the same behavior in their private lifes. Also the intention is not static per who the other person is, same person in different contexts may mean different intentions, different behavior - it's not like we (the people) are a thingie that's a flat line, we're reactive to all the parameters and context of our environment. Imo it's entirely reasonable to moderate behaviour, all places moderate behaviour, just as someone can't go to the bus stop naked, they shouldn't use slurs online - but this is a different topic entirely.

One could flip that the other way, most people (not referring to tdb members in specific) are way more inhibited offline, more than they can afford to be.

For one it is better to open the thread for what it is intended, online discussion at TBD. A stranger in a public space is not a close analogue, unless it's a place where people gather to talk about certain topics yet remain unaffiliated in their private lives. For one what is missing in these options is context. context matters, a lot, e.g. your last two choices are effectively preceded by labeling the other person ( internally ) before external behavior manifests in the choices you made. Labeling/judging is ( internal ) means of saving time but automatically it also puts the other person sitting opposite, not next to you - even if the label is technically correct. So it all comes down to what is the intent, do you want to help someone? if the reasons you would label them for are the very same reasons that are blocker for them, then one should follow a different internal process ( too long to discuss here ). However if e.g. a thread is not about helping someone in some way, then may as well label, there's no fundamental reason not to. Two, the means of externalising the labeling of a person or a position, aka behaviour, has various degrees. You however you reduced it to "name calling" as the only option provided. Externalising a view, can actually be something very healthy. Another thing that is missing is that these are very interrelated. E.g.ironically too much of the first option, can lead to the calling names option. The "calling names" option ( fistfight being impossible in a message board ), often is anger which has built, sometimes due to lack of assertiveness in previous threads. ( btw not saying anger is always due to lack of assertiveness, but lack of assertiveness often leads to anger ).

As non-practitioner of Neidan I'm interested in a top down view of the Neidan "taxonomy" and lineages. E.g. where does GF fit in that taxonomy.

Assertiveness is actually a good thing, hence all these assertiveness trainings, it's a core skill. For some people (not saying for you in specific) lack of assertiveness leads to anger and for some in turn anger leads to aggressiveness. Anger is ok too, not demonising it by any means, people have a right to be angry but in practical terms it's more difficult to deal with anger than cultivate assertiveness. I don't agree with Dwai's options nor with the way this was rolled, I didn't vote from the beginning for that reason, as how it would roll was fairly obvious. Perhaps these are the only tangible options dwai sees and he may see it as flat across-the-board actions. Ofc he's free to view the world as he wishes, but ultimately his a)b)c)s are a very limited view.

The difference is that in a dream state what you experience as reality is entirely non-dual. You both create it and experience it, at the same time. In dream, objects follow whatevs laws you impose on them either unconsciously ( in a normal dream) or consciously ( in a lucid dream ). After you wake up, apples will always fall from trees though and never fly towards the sky, no matter how much consciously or unconsciously believes that. Dreams though sometimes are genuinely felt experiences and the affect and thoughts they left us with may well carry over when we are awake.

Can joy exist without the existence of suffering ? In life we experience both. One can come to terms with the polarity of joy-suffering. Imo this is the healthiest. One can try to bypass it a la Buddhism, with varying degrees of dissociation to both joy and suffering. Expecting only one or the other though, will likely lead to filtering life in a polarised way. But above all, a masochistic view that suffering is "worth" it because there's joy too, is not healthy. It's not "worth it", it's just inevitable sometimes.

Some pathologists or GPs may be able to do a lot till you see a specialist. We often think of them as generalists, but some of them do have domain knowledge in other areas, it's just not at the same depth as that of a specialist in that area - this is my layman's understanding of it at least and what I do personally ( I don't have any training or knowledge in Medicine ) The CBT psychotherapist will work with the symptoms no matter what caused them, in your case they could work with you on the brain fog and what you can do to improve. Imo it's still important to see a medical doctor for the brain fog as there may be underlying physiology. E.g. - just to give an example as to why seeing a doctor in parallel to psychotherapy is important, I am not saying this as something that may be relevant to you, just an example/illustration of the importance of a medical doctor alongside psychotherapy - after a car accident people often experience brain fog (and also short term memory loss), it is very important that they are monitored by a medical doctor as one of the factors causing this is that their organism needs a lot of resources to repair, in a sense the memory loss happens because their organism prioretises not to register an event and instead uses all its resources to heal. So a medical doctor monitoring the process of physiological healing is very important. A psychotherapist will help a lot, but only a medical doctor can deal with the physiological components of this. Any backpedaling on the physiology front may undo progress in psychotherapy. Psychotherapy-wise Imo when there are symptoms there, first lower the symptoms and integration follows after the symptoms have been treated - Jung was of the same view btw, he was extremely practical and efficient with his patients/clients, all the integration stuff he discovered, working on polarities etc, he knew well when it's time to work on that and when it's time to focus on symptoms. CBT is excellent at symptoms treatment - provided the psychotherapist has training and experience in protocols relevant to your symptoms, so ask them over the phone. Best of luck with recovering.

Everyone's conditioned, they are, you are, everyone is, to a larger or smaller extent. It's just the human condition we're all under. Btw a good "test" you can do to see if a facial expression ( the smile or anything really ) is inhibited, is the following - everyday for 2 months do a deep relaxation program. Towards the end of the program have a pic/video of yourself in complete relaxation, no inhibited expression remains in deep relaxation 👍 for Pavlovian terminology

For heat in the chest, head pressure did you see a pathologist or a GP ( who may refer to further specialists if needed ) ? - these sound like physical symptoms to me. Re mental fog, this is a symptom, which I gather you want to reduce. Perhaps then it's worth going with a symptoms based approach and see a CBT therapist. You can also discuss this with your GP, as it may well have physiological components. A CBT therapist will assess of course if they need to work together with a psychiatrist, psychotherapy sometimes has to be combined with medication, sometimes not. I would recommend calling them and before starting therapy, discussing with them and asking them if they have experience and training that is relevant for your symptoms, if not if they can refer you to someone who does. If you are suffering from symptoms, perhaps starting from there is the best route. Other approaches that focus more on integration can be excellent at what they do but as at the moment since it's symptoms that you worry about, starting with symptoms-based approach may be the most helpful route. You can always work on the rest later is you want to, after symptoms have ceased to cause suffering. Also, imo find someone close to where you live/do in-person sessions. Hope the above helps.

Perhaps , instead of lower nature, a better way to see it is a man's rejected nature, which does include parts of himself he rejects eg because of socially introjected rules - but it's not limited to that, it's all of his parts which he rejects. It often includes very creative parts of us as well. Integrating is a better way to see it, there's nothing to conquer. Integration doesn't mean succumbing to it, not fighting it. It's about bringing it to consciousness. Without integration, one is held down by himself.

I've quoted philosophy very little here, only poor ol' Epictetus in a couple of places here and there This part: Is not philosophy, it's affective neuroscience Affective neuroscience of the emotional BrainMind: evolutionary perspectives and implications for understanding depression - PMC (nih.gov)

In some religious traditions Gods and Demons have "true names" which are distinct from the common names people use to refer to them. True names typically were known only by priests of the said Gods and Demons but not known to the wider population. The use of the "true name" allegedly is to summon God(s) and Demons. In terms of names discovered exclusively by means of archeological research/excavations etc, have any fragments, papyri etc been found which mention alleged true names?

Dude throwing mud left and right is low, or did you read that in those super-duper secrets from amazon.com ?

Maybe it is, I wouldn't know tbh. For me question is perhaps similar to the OPs, as the end goal does seem similar to (Theravada) Buddhism, I see no reason to practice it. What does look like a mess to me is not Neidan itself, because I don't know about that, it's tracing lineage and separating the weed from the chaff on teachers of Neidan. So, I prefer to keep things simple, in Theravada I've found someone who is ordained, senior, very knowledgeable and kind, whom I'm happy to work with, so for me it makes sense to continue in that path. Qigong looks more interesting to me tbh as it's more about general well being if you like and different altogether and thus non-conflicting with what I practice.

Could be, I know only very little about Daoism tbh, so don't really have a view on that.

Yes but the new stuff was those practices that were invented long after the Buddha, they wanted to hijack the Theravada name. The reform to practice as the Buddha taught was the exact opposite.

Making this thread so that we continue here, instead of the psychedelics thread 🧵. This is by no means "my" thread so feel free to ask new questions as the thread evolves. Not having any background in neurofeedback, my main questions regarding neurofeedback research are Why is it worse than eg CBT research standards - not against standards which other fields have, which often do have a higher level of standards. Why the overall concern on its efficacy, it's a form of operant conditioning. Also it has been linked to placebo, I'd want to question that, operant conditioning in general is not placebo, though a treatment with operant conditioning may be comparable to one based on placebo ( they can even be combined).

The history of the original practice how it was transferred between regions during wars etc is very interesting, Bhikkhus typically discuss this when asked. The borat dude was not ordained in the original practice, which is the main practice today, instead he was in practices which are known to have emerged much after the Buddha, like tantra which came out much later. Exactly, it's not illegal to practice or teach anything. The issue is confined in calling this Theravada, when it's not. Other than that, anyone's free to practice whatever they like and ofc this can include practices that came much later than the Buddha.

But you are here to save us with super secret links from amazon 😁👍❤️

Jhana practice is actually very common in Theravada. Honestly the best route to learn Theravada is to engage in a relationship with a Theravada Bhikkhu where you live and/or visit the area, the route of TBD fantasies and hearsay is really very removed from reality.

Thank God in TBD we now the real truth and can redefine Theravada according to fantasies

It's would take a long post to respond to everything eg the history of abhidhama would need pages, which unfortunately I don't have time for. Note though that the Suttas contain all the practices. So, no they won't agree many of their practices are later developments, because they aren't. The short answer is though the borat dude started to exist long after Buddha's times and thus these practices are not part of Theravada. He can practice whatevs he wants ofc, it's not illegal, it's just not Theravada. The best way to see how practice was formed is to both find a Bhikkhu to discuss how practice was preserved in the area, throughout wars, political changes etc, how the preserved practice is what's practiced today in Theravada and also read scholars on the origins of abhidhama ( the scholars may not agree on the abhidhama origins btw but do agree tantric practices came out much later than the Buddha ).