Ian

When my father was dying there were a few very deep and peaceful moments.

If there is no now, when does everything happen? The past? The future? Seems to me like the daftest thing I've heard in a while. Admittedly a lot of people talk new age rubbish about living in the present and avoid doing any practice which might enable them to do so. And yes, living in the present has nothing to do with irresponsibly going with every impulse. And people who've learned a lot of quality, complex, esoteric stuff over a period of years can easily get irritated when (for example, and not trying to drag you guys into anything) me and Sean and Cameron talk about how simple it all is. But the one does not invalidate the other. Lots of complex knowledge and techniques can be necessary, because people have lots of individual and complex ways of keeping themselves out of the flow. It's all so simple, man.

Goal: to come to do nothing but stand and thereby release karma. Practice: stand, relax, feel feet on floor. Knees just bent enough to release groin, palms pointing at hips. Results: Very gradually opening up body. Ability to shut the head up comes and goes. I don't incorporate anything else. Trying to do less rather than more.

I know very litle about the origins of either, but I do have a couple of thoughts. One : a few thousand years ago life may have been quite tough, and it may have been necessary to use certain practices simply to help stay alive long enough to make a decent fist of meditation. And that some of these practices might have since been seen as part of the process, rather than a means to it. (obviously some overlap: clear tubes, health body, steady mind etc etc) Also, certain martial practices, again, may have been useful in terms of staying alive, and getting a profession, i.e. bodyguard etc which allowed /included some cultivation. Again, a means rather than an end. As I say, just thoughts. Nothing I want to argue about.

Interesting. Barry Long has a different approach to the word. He regards dis-membered awareness as unified, i.e into the ground of sensation, no separate limbs, and re-membering as returning to a more everyday awareness. Either way, it's wonderful to, er, ahem, recall (?) that the word is physical.

One thing I've really started to notice lately is the, well, for want of a better word, possession aspect to anger. I find that when I give in to anger there is always an extra force to it, as if something has been just waiting and waiting to join in. I used to poo-poo the idea of all these entities floating about seeking to resonate with the energy of the embodied, but now I'm kinda finding it to be unmistakeably so. I don't know if it's very useful generally, but I'm hoping to be able to use this knowledge to assist the "I don't have to go with this because it isn't me" angle.

I have his findhorn retreat on CD. (or at least i did have - seem to have lent it) 4 discs. It's nice. BTW it's been bugging me that I never got around to reciprocating a "Happy birthday" last October. So here it is. Hope you had a good one.

Thank you for your answer, and my apologies for being part of the difficulties mentioned in the previous version. Your answer does help to reassure me that your path is one of many and that there are indeed many. The quote above reminds me of a passage from the Magus of Strovolos, where Daskalos is dispersed in a field of love and is challenged by a higher entity to let go of even that identity which remains, but cannot. You might find it of intesest: very different practices, but a similarly strong emphasis on love. Last night I was listening to Barry Long, for a change, and had a glimpse of being neither there nor not there. Just a glimpse, simple, obvious, reached for it (doh!) and it was gone. But knowing it exists is such sustenance.

What makes something "wrong"? Does it have an inherent indwelling wrongness, or is it merely that it doesn't work for you? Many things can be ineffective, wrong even, but we can let them go by. For those things to actively wind you up and provoke this "more-complex-than-irritation" response will often imply that they trigger something in you. (or in me at least. maybe you're different) That something in you would then your responsibility, not the other person's. Why does people telling people how to behave annoy you so much? And how can you ask a question of a bunch of people who aren't you, who don't know you, and expect there to be no assumptions in the answer? Oddly, most of the vibe I get from you is one of you telling other people how to behave (communicate). What do you want ??? Us all to go away and leave you here in an empty forum? To me you sound as if you are demonstrating the very superiority you claim to despise. This may be a false impression, but it's all I have. I am irritated by you. Nothing more complex. And I take responsibility for that. My problem. Am I wrong in my interpretation of your typed words? Could you be wrong in your interpretation of other people's typed words? I hope I haven't been offensive. I just like Cat, that's all.

Taomeow, One very small technical point - if anyone really pisses you off on a regular basis, you can, on this forum, set your personal controls to block all that person's posts from being shown to you. As to the main drift of your initial post, like Craig, I'm not sure what response you might hope for, if one was to take it at face value. I mean, yes, people, self included, make many more statements than they can justify. Were you asking us to stop? If so, you may be disappointed. If not, then your choices are limited. Don't expose yourself to it. Learn not to mind it. Ask very specific questions, including details of what sort of reply you don't want. etc etc. What response were you hoping for? How to tell people they're full of shit in such a way that they accept it and mend their ways? If you find out, for god's sake tell us all, at once. Dogmatically.

Yes, it's a HUGE ISSUE, especially for me! I have enormous residual tension in and around the eyes. Generally my approach is not to use attention so high up, lest it compound the problem, but to stay at the feet and trust it all to settle. But just to be aware of the outside the body aspect is really useful. BTW, this essay raises the question of the bases of the senses. This is something I've only heard about from one teacher. (but what a teacher!) Apparently there is a place/aspect of energy whiuch enables each sense. Lacking this, no sensory function, even if the organs of sense are perfectly formed. These places/functions have a very fine, light feeling which I've only been able to reach when guided in person. For location, they are just in from the physical organs of sense, i.e. behind the eyeballs, inside of the ears, base of the tongue. Check 'em out if you can!!

Spike Milligan, Bill Hicks, Graham Chapman, Sam Kinison, Bill Bailey, Paul Merton, The Goodies, Chris Morris (does he count?) And some I forget. Will nip back for an edit later. And just in case I'm off line for a bit, Happy Xmas to one and all. I

This is a useful book. www.erowid.org is a very comprehensive site. My suggestion would be never to do these things other than with a serious and sincere purpose, and to try to communicate that purpose directly to the vegetative entity(ies). Otherwise one can REALLY get one's nose rubbed in one's own frivolity. I have heard, indirectly, that even some (or at least one) traditional high-level Buddhist teachers acknowledge that Ayahuasca is of a different order to other psychedelics and can be used spiritually, although it's rarely a good idea in any given case. True Hallucinations is another very enjoyable book. Hope helps, I

Actually, I just re-read the first thirty or so of Sean D's posts and he was unfailingly polite and reasonable. I haven't been following entirely, so I don't really know where things might have got rancorous, but I wonder how much of the attitude of those communicating with him (including me) is due to 1) Training being offered which one might potentially rather like to do but life and finance doesn't permit, producing a bit of a sour grapes syndrome. or 2) Bad memories of previous debates with students of David (Cemsen, anyone?) or, on both sides, 3) Simple communication failures. I recall a post by Michael Winn some time ago, where he pointed out that most communication occurs through body language and tone of voice, and that it's therefore about a million percent easier to misconstrue the attitude of another person if you've only got print to go on. What I mean is, you know, it's Christmas, let's all be friends. And perhaps make fewer statements and say "it seems to me" more.

50 % by weight or by volume? I think maybe I'm not putting enough greens in, myself. Cheers, I

That's really nice. It's so hard to accept, or has been for me, that it's so simple. If you don't resist stillness, if you don't require stimulus, if you can just shut the fuck up! But once it is so simple, it's so simple! By no means easy, but simple. One of Barry Long's favourite phrases is just that: "I said it was simple, I didn't say it was easy." I'm nowhere near a stage of being drawn happily into stillness. Much closer than I was, but I still do lots and lots of directed faffing about in order to interrupt the various things I do instead of being still. Which is uneccessary, except that it isn't, yet. There's a great little book called something like "The Zen Teaching of Ha Hui." It compares, at one point, enlightenment to being like the boiling of water. Nobody quite knows how the water boils, but it seems to happen a lot more to water that has been waiting patiently at 99 degrees. This doesn't necessarily mean, I think, that the practices necessarily "cause" the "consequences." They may just be what you want to do as you start to ripen. I'm definitely rambling. In your eclecticism, you might well appreciate a Barry Long tape called "Now - the secret of infinity." It's the most direct thing I've ever heard. Thank you for your post(s). Helpful and inspiring. I

All practices also build karma. "Practice karma" - what you want to happen as a result of your practice, can be one of the hardest karmas to shed. And also one of the subtlest to notice. And high-energy "light the blue touch paper and retire" kinda practices can be especially beguiling, since all those landmark changes convinvce you you must be doing ok. Good momentum and a moderate level of achievement can be more important than trying to get the job done quickly. It's a little paranoid to assume that it's gotta be done this life before it all goes pear-shaped. It can be argued that neigung is something you eventually experience, not something you try to do. It's a sign of a good practice that you can shut up and get on with it. If you have to trumpet it as being better than other people's you leave yourself open for others to conclude that you are mainly trying to convince yourself. Live and let live, anyone?

Is that the Paul Grilley DVD?

For meditation which is about concentration, i.e. just developing mental abilities/clarity, then sitting in an uncomfortable position stops you drifting off, and being able to do it properly is a good indicator of progress. But if your meditation has a physical element, then you sabotage yourself by sitting in a position that blocks your leg channels. Chair would be better. Or so I'm told. I could never sit cross-legged myself. Used to sit on a tiny stool above my heels. If you are going to sit cross legged, do get someone to show you. There's quite a lot to it. Hope helps, I

I'm not sure this profound and simple thread is the right place to make a nit-picking linguistic point, (but don't think that's going to stop me...) It's something that has bugged me for ages. I think "the" is a pernicious word. It always suggests there's only one option. Suppose you met a man who was about to jump off a bridge to his death, and he asked "can you tell me the purpose of life?" I'd have to say no. But If the same person asked "can you tell me a purpose of life?", I'd be able to think of many. I think, not that it will ever happen, that if we abandoned "the" we'd be a lot less dogmatic and convinced and certain. If every time we thought we had "the" answer, we realised we only had "an answer", wouldn't we be better, humbler beings? This is what comes of having saki with lunch. Happy thursday... .

Li Jiong may well be right. Though having said that, Plato's avatar was a turd last time I looked. If I'm being unfavourably compared to that, I may be a tiny bit disappointed. It does seem that we are all consistently politer in threads where no-one's selling anything. Maybe there should be a separate section.

Loads, yes. My goal is to "take no active part in thinking", to be something else, the presence, the sensation, rather than to try and stop the noise. If you really reckon that this technique has resolved for you, once and for all, all isues about being liked or popular, then I'm truly impressed and will give it a go. Does it work in terms of the opposite sex? Do you really have no concerns about whether a pretty girl likes you or not? When you are dismantling thought, where are you doing it from? What do you use? Can you break it down to baby steps or is it something you have to "get". Have you tried to teach it to people? Barrage of questions. Better get back to work

I think we agree more than we think we do, although there may be some points we can't resolve. The model that I'm using holds that our ideal/original state is one of complete embodiment. That any abstract thought projects attention out of the body into the past or the future. This creates a vacancy within the body in which squatters (i.e. unprocessed emotional patterns) can take up residence. So I don't really have a problem with talking about a mental origin for bodily impurities. In my model, your process is akin to becoming aware that the squatters' continual shouting is actually unreal nonsense that can be ignored, or heard without being affected thereby, and the one I mentioned actually turfs them out, albeit very slowly. I know I get called a masochist when I claim that the only way out of trauma is through, and that one needs to physically experience every negative, with detachment, to actually be shot of it. I can't justify this opinion except that several teachers I really trust say it is so. P.S. Love the "slightly" - you so polite!!