goldisheavy

I think it's easy to distinguish religion from philosophy. 1. Do they worship Laozi, Zhuangzi and Liezi as deities? (yes - religion, no - philosophy) 2. Do they actually bother to read and understand the writings of Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Liezi? (no - religion, yes - philosophy) 3. Do they focus on selling charms as opposed to explaining the inner mechanics behind charms that would enable all people to make their own? (yes - religion, no - philosophy) (To give you an equivalent from another religion, for example a Christian uses a relic of some saint to heal without explaining that faith itself is what heals and you can have a faith in the chair and also get healed... in other words, you don't have to believe in anything even remotely Christian to get healed, but rather the mind itself heals you, your own beliefs heals you.... so Christianity disempowers the person while empowering the group dependence) 4. Do they foster self-reliance or do they create perpetual co-dependence? (fosters self-reliance - philosophy, fosters perpetual co-dependence - religion) (and here I note that it's good and natural for people to help and share, but this is not what I call co-dependence. Co-dependence is a group dynamic that is manipulative where one member of the group tries to manipulate the rest of the group to his or her advantage and appears to be stuck in that modality, afraid to live in a different way) Of course things do not have to be black and white. Nothing stops a contemplative person from engaging in some religious activity and nothing stops a religious person from engaging in some contemplative activity. The reason I value the Taoist sages is because of what they said. It's not because they fly high above us in the sky and if we pray to them all will be better. Everything we need to make our lives better has already been revealed by the three sages. If people only pick up those books and read them, that knowledge can be immediately put into practice. One does not need to hunt far and wide for a Guru or join a religion to benefit.

Is it many orgasms or is it one long orgasm? If I an have an orgasm every 10 minutes, does that mean I am multi? What about every hour? What about once a day? What about 3 a minute? But why not consider the 3 a minute to just be one long orgasm? What's better: one long orgasm or 3 shorter ones? Do orgasms get boring after a while? I am thinking that the more of something you can have the more ordinary it becomes. Do the subsequent orgasms have the same strength/pleasure as the first? Do they go up or down in pleasure? Do women get tired from this? I ask this because it's not unheard of to hear a woman complain "Why doesn't he orgasm already??? How much more do I have to take?" Do you need a special woman to practice this stuff with? If you can orgasm without ejaculation, can we take this further? Can you orgasm without sex? How about orgasming in your finger? Or forehead? Or your whole body? If yes, why bother with sex? Why not just walk around orgasming at all times? If not, why not? Hope this helps.

I agree. As crazy as this might sound, I think humans are content with their condition. I don't think they will want to change voluntarily soon. So if I have to think of some scenarios where people evolve emotionally, I think maybe a global catastrophe or even better, an impending Cosmic cataclysm will be necessary. Alternatively I can imagine some humans with a lot of stamina appear and begin to constantly ask questions, not allowing people to sleep comfortably. This is similar to repeatedly kicking a sleeping person to awaken them. The sleepers do not appreciate this, and consider it a hostile act, but it can succeed in awakening people. The trick is to cause enough discomfort to wake people up but not so much discomfort as to cause anger to clouds the process of awakening, thus nullifying any benefit that might have otherwise been derived. It's a fine line to walk. If you talk too sweetly, people just sleep even harder. If you are too mean, people just can't see beyond their anger. And being in the position of kicking people awake is not a welcome job. Alternatively I think people may wake up naturally just like people wake up after 8 hours of sleep even without an alarm clock. Our emotional condition might be cyclical. In that case maybe we all become wise and enlightened in a billion years or two, whether we like it or not. I can't rule that out. So in that case the answer to "what does it take" becomes "gobs and gobs of time". At some point the person may want to consider, "What's it worth being human?" Do I want to be human so much that I am willing to wait for humanity to awaken or to otherwise suffer as I either attempt to awaken them or pray for a Cosmic cataclysm (which is also suffering), or maybe I am too attached to the human condition and the problem is my own? Maybe instead of blaming humans I just need to abandon my own humanity. It's like if you're in a bar and they have bad music there, instead of blaming the bar, maybe it's time to find another bar. In that case, maybe being human sucks and maybe some of us need to stop being human?

I think this is exactly right. Religion as a method of group cohesiveness and as a political institution has little or nothing to do with enlightenment, wisdom or spiritual development/growth or any such thing. I think religion merely co-ops people's desire for spiritual growth and takes advantage of it. It's like if I know you are hungry and I know you're desperate, and I sell you some 5 day old left-overs for 100 dollars. I am just using your hunger to make myself richer. I think that's what religion does. It sells rotten trash as food to people who are starving. Not only is it rotten, but it's overpriced too. And many religions are not happy to make claims of being better. For example, many Buddhists think that there is no way to become enlightened outside of Buddhism. So Buddhism is not just better. It's EXCLUSIVE. It's an exclusive club. Muslims, same thing. Christians, same thing. Many religious people and hence religions make claims of exclusivity To me, making claims of exclusivity is more sinful and more evil than merely claiming you have a better or more efficient way to live. It's a whole 'nother level of "eeeeeevvil" (pinky finger applied to the corner of the mouth, a la mini-me). I like how various Buddhists sects rag out on each other. They say things like "well we can reach enlightenment in 7 life times but you guys have to wait 3 aeons..." That's pretty bad, but at least they admit the "inferior" Buddhist can reach enlightenment at all using his idiotic method. Many religions are not that nice to each other!

The problem that Kirkland and others like him will have is that they cannot eliminate Zhuangzi from Taoist ethnography (or there a better word? spiritualography? philosography? or philosophigraphy?). And Zhungzi is very uncompromising and very clear in his approach. He attacks dogmatism of any kind, questions rituals and norms and so on. And he's considered the most important person in Taoism right after Laozi himself. You just can't sweep that shit under any rug. In reality we cannot know what happened long time ago. What we have is our recent past and all the thoughts and records and legends and myths that our recent past grants us. That's it! What's important is this. Instead of establishing what happened or didn't happen back then, what is most useful right now? And right now the most useful thing is something like Zhuangzi's contemplation of phenomena. Religious Taoism is a lot less useful or maybe even harmful. It might be one of the things that Zhuangzi would be horrified of if he saw it develop. It would be a perversion of his thinking. The same thing is mirrored in Lieh Tzu. In Lieh Tzu there is a very good description of an enlightened society. I think it was some emperor who put everything aside and started meditating and contemplating 24/7 when he had a dream. In his dream he saw people who were like cats. No one followed anyone else. No one could be said to be wiser than the other. No one argued with each other and tried to prove anything. And yet any member of this society could perform any phenomenal feat whatsoever. These people had limitless abilities and there were not organized in any way. There was no goverment and no bureaucracy and yet there was spontaneous harmony. I am probably screwing this up somewhat, so if you want a perfect description of this, try to read any translations or originals of Lieh Tzu (pinyin Liezi) you can get your hands on. So if you take 2 of the 3 topmost Taoists, you can get all kinds of hints against religion and against formalities, against bureaucracies and so forth. And almost the entirety of Tao Te Ching is a testament against religion. I was going to pick a quote but then I realized I'd have to pick too many. It's just incompatible with religion from top to bottom.

You're smoking some good shit brother.

Ideally you should sleep on a plank of wood or gravel. I am not even kidding. Mattresses of any kind screw up the body's natural ability to have inner softness and resilience. However, if this is a hard step to take, I suggest a firm mattress of any kind. Avoid anything that conforms to your body's shape.

I'm assuming you're asking within Buddhist context. There is no such thing as "emptiness" meditation. You can contemplate emptiness as the mark of phenomena. That is to say, phenomena are empty of inherent existence. All phenomena are conditional. Just think what this means. Now if you seclude yourself and put your daily grind on hold, then bring to mind this topic about the empty nature of phenomena, and give it some thought, that's called "contemplation." As you contemplate you may also have some unusual experiences, just like in meditation. Or you may have no unusual experiences. Contemplation is not a brute force technique. It's a slow process of considering something over and over in such a way as to cause a shift in your perception and appreciation over long term. From a Buddhist POV all meditations, as well as all waking experiences are empty whether you like it or not, whether you want them to be that way or not. So you can count your breaths, or just sit, or stare at a wall, or visualize a stream of A's going into your body and dissolving it, or whatever -- all this is empty, but none of those are "emptiness meditation". "Emptiness meditation" is a confused term used by those who don't know what they are talking about in Buddhism. Emptiness is a concept that can be considered. You cannot meditate on it because it's way too abstract to be a subject of intent or activity (and the logical complements of those two).

I thought there was something special in this video. Judge for yourself.

Same weight as Buddha's or Bodhidharma's. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I exchanged a few notes with SereneBlue in PM and she asked me to post my replies to her because she thinks they could be useful to someone "out there" besides her. Here's the first one: And since this is already pretty big, I'll add the second one below. Second reply in PM to SereneBlue:

You are just reinforcing my opinion that you've swallowed the medicine but the effect didn't kick in yet. You parrot the words very well but don't understand the implications yet. Since you didn't react to what I said, I don't think there is anything I can do now. You're on your own.

Why don't you send me a check for 100 thousand dollars? How does that strike you as an idea? If you don't have the money right away, then I can accept the money in the form of installments. I'm patient. Am I nice guy or what? That's kind of what you're offering me. This is the same thing all advertisements prey on, "Without this car, you are nothing. Wanna be a real man? Wanna get a hot woman???!! YOU NEED OUR CAR! BUY OUR CAR!!! But don't wait, the stocks are running low! CALL NOW!!!" The enlightenment infomercial is like this too. But that's not the end. Imagine this. So you buy this car and feel stupid. Because chicks still don't want you and your penis is still as small as ever. So what do you do? Well, you need to appear justified in your actions! You don't want to look stupid. So how do you do that? That's easy! Tell all your friends to buy one too! That way you are not alone and your decision to buy one is vindicated. Misery loves company.

Yes, I do. No, you're just detecting your own limitations. I don't think I've clearly defined ego at all. Furthermore, is there a difference between clinging and not-clinging?

xabir, who is saying the above quote and what doctrine do you attribute it to? I sure hope you don't attribute it to Buddhism though. First, since there is no confirmatory experience, there is no way to arrive at a place where you can consider "I truly know awareness." You can still decide that you know it, but this decision is creative and playful. It's a declaration. It's not like something in your field of experience forced you to recognize awareness. It's not a matter of being presented with or experiencing irrefutable evidence. If you want to say that the feeling of self is deceptive, you must, as a good Buddhist, acknowledge that the feeling of there being anything other than self is equally as deceptive, since it's two sides of the same coin. And you don't seem to be doing a good job of it. If you experience oblivion and presence as of one taste, and view this as an inherently significant experience, it implies you do not see that "one taste" and "multiple tastes" are also one taste. It means you're still thinking that one taste is a special experience that is especially instructive and has the power to liberate. If you think that, it means your insight is not yet mature, as you still do not comprehend the insubstantiality of differences. To put this in other words, many Buddhists strive in vain after the non-conceptual truth forgetting that the difference between conceptual and non-conceptual is a concept that they are trying to avoid or transcend. Giving blind and non-nuanced preference to non-conceptual perceptions is not really Buddhist-like. It's kind of a dogmatic deviation from the true intent of Buddha, which is actually very mysterious and not to be summarized.

I think it's wrong to jump to conclusion that you understand what the error is. Yes, I pointed something out to you, but I believe you don't quite understand what I was saying. So whatever you think your error is based on something I was saying, is likely to be wrong. You need a healthy ego to live. Instead of trying to inflate it or deflate it or to obsess about the size of your ego, it's much better to understand the real concerns behind the scenes that drive this obsession with one's ego manipulation. Keeping your ego down to size is as much ego manipulation and ego obsession as attempting to inflate one's ego. This doesn't mean you shouldn't manipulate your ego. I am not even saying that obsession is always wrong. Instead I am saying it's important to understand nuances and various angles, various ways of looking at the same thing. What's wrong with ego? Who complains about big egos? Is ego scary? Is ego dangerous? (To whom, under what conditions, etc.?) I think if you follow up these questions, you'll find something surprising. EDIT: Moreover, I don't think it's wrong to want attention or to want to be loved and appreciated. The only wrong thing about it is lying to oneself about it... kind of like "I want attention, but wanting attention is evil, so I need to become less evil and more good, more humble, so that people will appreciate me more and pay more attention to me." This is a confused, self-contradictory and dishonest way of thinking. I'm not saying this is the only possible way to go wrong. There are other concerns that are just as confused as this one if you examine them closely.

Based on this peculiar reply somehow I am not convinced you understand me. So your "you're right" sounds a little hollow to me. Give it some thought before you disagree. Why are you afraid of being an egomaniac? What is wrong when other people are egomaniacs? If you think about it, you may start to understand things better. You may want to answer these two questions on this forum to reveal your thinking on this topic.

Why bother with personality attacks? Why not take something from the doctrine that Castaneda outlined and try to attack that, if you can? Instead you are focusing on rumor mongering and various tangential things. Who cares if Castaneda stole something or even invented it or maybe hallucinated the whole thing? It's not important. Just because something is invention doesn't mean it's bad or wrong. Just because something is not considered a hallucination by the majority does not mean it's real. The real question is not whether or not Castaneda was a good guy or not, but, is the doctrine as outlined by Castaneda useful? I think it is. I did exercises from the book "The power of dreaming" or similarly named, and benefited tremendously from it. I don't care if he stole it or not. And maybe if he stole it, that's even better, because maybe the original owner wanted to keep it a secret and without this rascally thief I'd never find out eh?

How do you know this if you don't know? If you say you know that you need training, you don't have a state of unknowing. So either the first or the second sentence is untrue, or both are untrue. Worrying about inflating your ego is precisely egomia! You think you are so important that if you inflate your ego even a little, the whole world will collapse. That's exactly what self-importance, egomania is. It's very very very tricky. Often thoughts of humility as just a cover for immense egomania. You're one of the most egotistical people I know on this forum. It starts with your picture and goes on to the bold fonts and different color that you use to attract attention to yourself. It's obvious from a mile away that you seek approval and adoration. It's not ego that goes haywire but mind. There is a difference. To learn what is and is not haywire you need to become self-reliant. If you always cling to the coat-tails of others, you'll always be out of control, since in that case you will not take full responsibility for your well-being and mental states. Feelings are insubstantial. If you give your feelings substance, you're in trouble no matter what kind of feelings you have. But if you are wise enough to understand what it means to say that feelings are insubstantial, you'll be OK no matter what feelings you have temporarily. And there is no such thing as a permanent feeling. Yes, so what? I still like you even though you're a deluded egomaniac. It's your self-importance that makes you shy and constipated.

Because I also realize it? So I know what I am talking about, unlike you. No, it's not substantially different. The whole point of anatta doctrine is that differences are insubstantial. The process of delineation is the root of identity. Buddha has philosophically attacked the notion of a stable identity in many ways. This then includes attacking the idea that there is a solid difference between suffering and Nirvana, between Buddha and a non-Buddha, and so forth, and Suttas and Sutras say as much, if you care to read them. So then, the difference between ego-clinging and liberation is null and void. It is imaginary. It's ephemeral. Ego is itself void. Void is itself ego. Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form. You need to redouble your contemplation. I detect mental sloth in you.

Says who? Certainly some people thought Buddha was a loony. Read the Suttas carefully. Buddha did not have unanimous support during his time. What helps Buddha is that his religion was not a strong deviation from the dominant one. While Buddha took one concept and turned it on its head (atman to anatman), many concepts received just minor tweaks (like karma) and otherwise were summarily borrowed, co-opted (meditation, contemplation, etc... none of this is new). Nothing changed. Not everyone thinks you're crazy. Even the so-called crazy people have many followers and sympathizers. This is the same as it has always been. What will help, is if the new religion appears eminently reasonable, then you can have more followers. But even if you take great pains to make your religion as reasonable as you can, you won't get a wide agreement, at least, not right away. Buddhism started with 5 people. Islam started with Mohammed's family and friends. Christianity started with 12 apostles, and so forth. They were all cults at some point. It's just that due to various conditions some of these cults grew so large that they are no longer labeled a "cult". But there is no solid difference between a cult and a major religion except size. Nothing special per se. They were crazy enough to try it. They thought they could succeed whereas another person would be discouraged. But if you look at the fruits of their labors, many religions are a blight on the world and not a source of wisdom at all... Why would you want to start one? I think religions did as much harm as good, or more harm than good, so it's not a great thing to start. Religion, if it is to have any kind of self-identity, implies dogmatism, and dogmatism is antithetical to spirituality.

Anyone can say this about anything and be right. Don't you understand anything? You're like the dumbest smart kid I know. You can understand half of the equation but you have trouble seeing it from the other angle. 1+1=2 -- you get this, but when someone writes 2 = 1 + 1 you are confused. Always defensive of your precious little Buddha instead of killing him. Well, so be it.

Don't waste your time. Everything is selfish, everything. Buddha was selfish and an egomaniac. I am certain so was Lao Tzu. The flip side is that everything is also selfless. It's all a matter of perspective. I'd say don't bother avoiding anything and don't guard anything. Be yourself. Be happy. Be proud. Be free. It's possible that some problems will develop, but you have to adapt as you go. For example, if you are too arrogant, you stop questioning yourself and it becomes easier to make a mistake. However, what happens if you don't care about being right or avoiding mistakes? That's right. In that case you can be as arrogant as you like. If you are too arrogant in front of another arrogant person, that other person may not want to share information or wealth with you. However, if you are too humble, you may not make a move, deeming yourself worthless and unimportant to even make an attempt. In Buddhism conceit is any comparison. So if you think you are less than others, that's conceit. If you think you are the same as others, that's also conceit. Nothing is perfect, but if anything, this is a good way to look at it. Many people strive for humility while in Buddhist view their efforts would be considered conceited, and to me this makes sense. Just be decent. You don't have to be an angel, just avoid being a total ass and that's good enough already. Don't obsess on it. You'll never be 100% accepted by society anyway, because there are many very diverse people and you won't be liked by all. In some cases, if someone likes you, you need to start questioning yourself. Being universally well liked could be a very bad trait too. For example, if some idiot likes you, you need to worry. If greedy people like you, again, this is a cause for worry. Some people really should dislike you to some extent if you have any amount of character. For example, an individualist dislikes someone who likes to share. Someone who thinks sharing is a virtue dislikes someone who thinks "every man for himself" and so on. Someone who is generous dislikes someone who is greedy. This is all natural and you cannot eliminate it. People want to feel good. This is why they enter on a path to begin with. Then whey they finally do feel good, they feel they don't deserve it, that it's just their ego getting in the way, and they go back to being miserable because they believe misery is all that they deserve. Some people think that misery is an essential quality of being alive and that if you don't feel miserable, you are dead. This clinging to misery is as egoistic as anything else out there.

The placebo problem Big Pharma is desperate to solve I thought some of you might enjoy this one.

What a coinqidinq. I was just about to add an article for the "Nocebo" effect, Seth. http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2009/...her_way_too.php Very interesting stuff. 松永道, I completely agree with you with one slight difference. While it's annoying that the "Western" establishment likes to poo-poo traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), there may be a good side-effect of that attitude in the long run. In the long run we may end up with a fresh and independent look at the issues without carrying over the biases of TCM. This may broaden our understanding. This doesn't mean TCM is bad or ineffective at all. I believe there is a good chance that an independent perspective on mind-medicine will benefit TCM too. I really like what you say about the paradigm shifts.

So what sees the eyes? Please don't tell me it's another eye.