liminal_luke

Asking questions, receiving answers, conversation -- if these things are outdated I´m in serious trouble.

I´m not sure if I´m onboard with the phrasing "duty to protect." With responsibility comes rules which are either upheld or broken, and all the judgements that go with that. That way of thinking seems contrary to nature to me: and how can we protect nature if we´re working from an unnatural mindset? We can start with ourselves. When our spirit is calm and centered, why would we harm the natural world? Why would we harm each other? It´s natural to be loving. It´s natural to want the best for others. When we are in harmony ourselves, everything else falls into place -- not because we are fulfilling some externally imposed duty, but because we are true to our own natures.

So much depends on you and what you want. I´m really getting into the Zapchen practice of sighing and yawn that Rigdzen Trindley talks about in his personal practice forum. Very relaxing and destressing -- not qigong though. I´m also a fan of really simple things like "swinging arms." For something simple but more meditative you might try the "inner smile." You can get Michael Winn´s free ebook about the inner smile if you´re willing to sign up for his newsletter (healingtaousa.com). If it´s a "form" you´re after I also like Michael Winn´s version of primordial qigong. There´s a dvd to buy that you can learn from if you like. Kind of like Tai Chi but much simpler and for spiritual development rather than martial arts. And then of course you could pick a system, always a good option for steady continuous growth. There´s lots of recommended ones to choose from: stillness-movement, spring forest, yi gong ---for starters. So much depends on you and what your goals are. If you could tell us a little bit more about what you hope to get out of your practice, people could probably make more focused suggestions. Good luck!

There´s a lot of controversy about opening the mco, whether or not it should be an area of focus, whether or not it is OK to use visualization. My own view is that the mco is part of our energetic anatomy: it´s up and running to a certain extent as long as we´re alive. With practice we can bring it into awareness, clear blockages, strengthen the flow. But it´s a part of the meridian system and everyone has one. Lots of practices strengthen the mco even if there´s no specific focus on it. Yi gong, the practice Max Christenson popularized and dubbed Kunlun, strengthens and opens all the channels. It´s hard for me to imagine alchemical processes happening independently. To me, it´s like asking if alchemy could happen independent of the liver. Every living person has a liver, and the state of that organ is going to have a huge effect on nearly everything else happening in the body.

This topic is above my pay grade, but here goes anyway. The MCO orbit is about the duality of yin and yang. Yang up the back, yin down the front. When this flow is strong and fluid, the center channel is nourished and becomes more active. The center channel is about the center -- stillness, silence, peace. The central channel is about the resolution of yin and yang into neutrality, emptiness, light. All that good alchemical stuff happens in the center. In this way the opening of the MCO gradually and of it´s own accord leads towards alchemy.

Tolerate Nothing, Accept Everything I´m no fan of tolerance. Tolerance is pouty and passive-agressive, shifty and small-minded. Tolerance is a grudging putting-up with something we really don´t like at all, usually because we lack the courage to come right out and say what we really think. When we tolerate something we feel tight, boxed-in -- vaguely victimized. When people say they tolerate screaming babies or gays or women cops, what is it they´re really saying? I think tolerance is shorthand for "I don´t like it at all but am too polite to say so in mixed company." Acceptance is so much better. Here there´s an implication that someone has gone through an internal process of coming to terms with something. As in: "In the past I couldn´t stand being around my mother-in-law, but now I see her as a person with both good and bad qualities and have learned how to enjoy myself around her." That´s acceptance. There´s openness and freedom in acceptance. Acceptance doesn´t always imply hearty approval; on the contrary, we can accept something we don´t like at all. In acceptance there´s this recognition that the world is the way it is, and there´s a readiness to deal with it straight on. Take violence, for instance. We´re right to have a "zero-tolerance" policy towards violence in most circumstances. At the same time, we can accept that there is violence in the world. Doesn´t mean we like it or approve of it. Doesn´t mean we´re not doing everything we can to eradicate it. Acceptance means that we can read the news, openly acknowledge all the bad things happening in the world, and not be immobilized by fear and anger. (PS: The word tolerance often comes up in reference to lesbians and gays. As a gay man, I´ve no use for tolerance. If you don´t like me, you might as well come straight out -- pun intended -- and say so. Political correctness does us no favors driving prejudice underground. I´d rather by openly hated than secretly despised. But that´s just me.)

You mentioned Yalom earlier. I´ve read some of his stuff and really like it. My favorite anecdote is the one about the lady that always brought a gigantic purse to their sessions. One time he spent the whole hour having her show him the contents of her purse and talking about it. For some reason, I found that really touching. I liked what you had to say to Taoway awhile back in the Off Topic section. What´s more, he wrote back saying he actually felt better. Didn´t see that coming.

I´m with you about psychoanalysis -- not logical at all. Where I live in Mexico it´s oddly popular, not sure why. We´re also agreed that it´s the relationship that´s curative, so maybe it could be effective if a particular psychoanalyst had sufficiently worked through his own issues and could establish a solid therapeutic alliance? In any case, psychoanalysis wouldn´t be my choice as a client. You´re right that a lot of folks here just want to talk. They´ll put out their opinion and banter back and forth about it, but aren´t necessarily willing or able to back up that opinion with hard evidence. Just the way it is. I think you´ll find that there´s a lot of intelligent people here though. I´ve certainly learned a lot here over the years.

Hi Jim, Sounds good. I in no way intended to imply that you don´t have a wealth of knowledge and expertise to share here. That´s the thing about this forum: so many of us have done amazing things, gone amazing places, practiced and learned a lot. I just want us to meet each other as equals, in an atmosphere of mutual respect. You might be surprised to learn some things about me. I too have a masters degree in counseling psychology (although I never got licensed or worked in the field, and therefore don´t claim your level of expertise). Ok, back (I hope), to philosophy. Liminal

Nobody likes to be talked down to, Jim. Including me. That´s kind of my point. Regardless of your age, former occupation, or wisdom, the fact is you are not the teacher here. Not officially. If someone wants to regard you as their teacher than that´s between you guys, but like I say -- on DaoBums we are all equals. If you´d like to have more control over threads you post (say to keep things on topic) there are options for that. You could start threads in your personal practice area and also in Wei Wu Wei. There you can delete any posts you choose from any member. We´ve gotten off the subject, but since you addressed me specifically in your comment I wanted to respond. But I for one wouldn´t complain if all these off-topic posts --including mine -- were pitted and we got back to the topic of philosophy and it´s usefulness (or lack therof).

I think the classroom metaphor is fun and playful, and you probably mean it playfully. But just so we´re all on the same textbook page: everyone has equal standing here on DaoBums and an equal right to speak their minds.

I wanted to quote this, because for me it´s an example of somebody making a philosophical principle their own in a way that serves them and their lives.

I think philosophy is what you make it. For some it´s an intellectual exercise (nothing wrong with that), while others craft a personal set of principles that anchors their whole life. We all have our own understanding of who we are and how our world works. We all want to find meaning in life. And these important things are the proper domain of philosophy. That said, taking a philosophy course in school might not be much help in figuring this stuff out. Guess it all depends. (I´m auditing this course -- no grade please. Just sittin´ in and bummin´off.)

Thanks for sharing your experience with Heavenly Streams, Pedro. I have the book but never really got into the practice. Maybe I´ll revisit it.

I´m reminded of that song lyric..."tired of living, and scared of dying." What if depression/suicidality and the desire for physical immortality are two sides of the same coin?

I think you´re right. The problem with all this "get tough on illegal Mexican immigrant" talk is that we don´t really want them to go. We might think we do, but we don´t. Their overall effect on the economy is a positive one, and if all the "illegals" were to one day up and go home we´d be in big, big trouble. So Trump can talk tough but there´s no wall that can keep them out. And that´s a good thing.

I don´t know about everybody everybody, but we´re mostly agreed on this part. There´s a whole lot of suppression goin´on. And OK, fair enough...no more off topic posts from me in your thread. Carry on.

Aetherous, To me, slander is stating a fact about someone that isn´t true. When I say that Trump "doesn´t see people as people" I wasn´t so much stating a known fact (I haven´t performed any psychological tests or anything), but more of an opinion. It´s my opinion that Trump foments racial disharmony and would continue to do so in the future if elected. It´s my opinion that Clinton is untrustworthy and perhaps a little weasily. You´re free to disagree, to have a contrary opinion, but that doesn´t mean I was being slanderous in stating mine. A trend-following liberal dolt, perhaps, but not a slanderous one.

Maybe not so off topic. Perhaps this kind of discussion is exactly what happens when you start a topic "stumping" for a man whose rallying cry is all about building fences to keep people he doesn´t like out of the country, a man who doesn´t see that people are people. We get racial divisiveness. You feel like pointing out (rightly or wrongly, I don´t know) that Jews were responsible for the genocide of blacks. Some folks start waving the confederate flag. I just don´t get that. Sure, an argument can be made that it´s not about racism, but given that it´s so offensive (rightly or wrongly) to so many, why would we want to even go there? I want to live in a world where we recognize that there´s good and bad in everyone, and in every racial groups history. How could it be otherwise when we´re all so very human? And a Trump presidency won´t help.

My understanding of your post, Aetherous, is that you´re saying Trump is the one slandered without sufficient reason. Now, it´s not like he´s not slandered (all presidential candidates are slandered, after all), but it´s interesting how he´s seen as a kind of underdog. There´s this sense that "everybody is against him." I´m certainly against him, I´ll give you that. But here on Taobums the most vocal voices have been pro-trump. Trump is no kind of beleaguered underdog. Lots of the masses are backing him -- just look at this thread. Can you imagine a thread titled "I stump for Clinton" getting much traction? She´s seen as the frontrunner, and may well be, but nobody here (myself included) is waving any flags for her.

Sanders walks in light; Clinton shade; Trump darkness.

Yes, very unique. (oops, now I´m wrong too)

Statistics not being my thing, I can´t say for sure that Rune isn´t technically correct. But come on, I think everybody understood what Marblehead was trying to say. I agree with Karl 175%.

This is a slight tangent, but I just want to say that I don´t think there´s anything wrong with having money, with wanting to have money, with having or wanting the things that money can buy. My opinion. There´s plenty of spiritually advanced people with money, plenty without money. Lots of not so spiritually advanced people with money as well as without it too.