Sloppy Zhang

Let's hear it for American public schools!

Eeeeehhhhhh..... yes and no. As the saying goes, we're only as strong as our weakest link (in this case, the least evolved link). Sure, there are a lot of people feeling the love, and getting into the whole "all is one" paradigm. And that's wonderful. But that only works as long as everyone is on the same boat. If there's a group of people out there looking to exploit others... well, it just doesn't work! I'd rather make a game plan based on how people actually are in the present, and try to figure out how to deal with that, than make a game plan based on how I hope people will be. If you don't get your hopes up, you won't ever be disappointed

Depends I guess. There were a bunch of Chinese kids in my high school (whose parents were from China). They were all very hardworking and smart. They all went to really good colleges. In college now, there are plenty of Chinese students (some are foreign exchange students from China). They are very smart and hardworking people. Also very nice and trustworthy. One of my Asian friends, however, said that by third generation you are pretty much "white"- you are fat, you are lazy, you are dumb. He said you can tell new immigrants because they are emaciated and can't speak English. You can tell kids whose parents are immigrants because they are smart and hardworking, and have lots of "Asian" characteristics. After that, they're finished Having known and been around lots of Asian (mostly Chinese, Korean, and Japanese), I'd say that there are a lot of instances in which his framework holds up

Tulku, have you ever BEEN to America? Because it's pretty damn sweet.

Sometimes when people make a really good post or provide a really good link, it leaves people speechless. How do you respond to a post or an article that lays it all out so nicely? Sometimes you can't. Which is why it's sad whenever quality posters quit posting because of lack of responses. It's easier to start talking shit to people after a shitty post

Well of course not My point is that even in the most loving and close relationships there is conflict as well as love. The two are not mutually exclusive. I see people putting forward the "all love, no conflict, all one, no borders" kind of thought, and, well, I don't know if that's the best, most well thought out solution to the world's problems right now. Telling people to be "all one" and have "no borders" sounds like it's chaos waiting to happen! I think it'd be far more productive if we got rid of the view that all conflict is bad, and the idea that any kind of separation is bad. Because some conflict is helpful and healthy. How can we be different but respect each other? How can we have borders, but realize that at the same time they are arbitrary and ultimately transitory? How can we cultivate the sense of proper timing so that we know when it is acceptable to transcend them, and when we must respect them as "real" and being there?

Or you could view it is a means of uniting people through similarities Do you have any brothers and sisters? Because I have a brother and sister, and we are all VERY different and we fight a lot over those differences. Both of my parents come from families that had 7 kids each (mix of boys and girls). Their differences have split the families apart, and their similarities have brought them together again, only to be split apart. Now I'm not going to pretend like I know where I want to go with that. But I'm just saying, that even close familial bonds, or even the recognition that you are in agreement with many things does not prevent conflict. The trick for me is if you can have them when you need them, but not have them if you don't need them For instance, I don't want my brother to go rummaging through my stuff. My brother doesn't want me rummaging through his stuff. We are separated in that sense and we have boundaries on "stuff", even though there is no real barrier between our things. But, say in an emergency, we wouldn't hesitate to get what we needed from each others' stuff, and we wouldn't ask permission, we wouldn't apologize, and we wouldn't hold it against anybody. I don't see boundaries as inherently harmful. And I don't see no-boundaries as inherently ideal (in fact, it could get pretty dang problematic). You're assuming alien races are somehow more "ideal" than ours. Necessity is the mother invention, and many of the greatest feats of the human race have been born out of a desire to conquer (be it a people, a territory, or a huge rock floating in our orbit). It's just as likely that alien races have gone through our same struggles. It's just as likely that the alien race who visits us has been able to do so because of technology that it developed through necessity (survival in any number of particular instances). Well if they are a strictly opportunistic species who acts in their best interest first and foremost, then they may look at the people in power and say "why are you going out of your way to appease the masses which you could easily enslave and use to build up your empire and lead to conquest?" Assuming a benevolent alien species who have the same ideologies that we are, and who aren't too much more advanced than us, because if they were significantly more advanced they wouldn't feel fear about watching us too closely, or care how "mature" we are. Of course another other option is that one side completely dominates and eradicates the other, with the remainder being completely subjugated (mentally and physically), so there is no longer a source of conflict.

I don't disagree at all! Really, as part of my cultivator mentality I believe in looking at the ugly truth. If you don't look at it, you're never going to change it. The sheer number of military engagements in the USA is not taught in schools. Declassified intelligence operations carried out in foreign and domestic situations are not taught in schools. For some things, if you don't already know that they are there, and you don't already know where to look, you won't ever find them. I believe it's part of an American citizen's duty to be knowledgeable about these things. I also think it's part of a citizen's duty to "follow the money", to ask questions about where politicians' funds are coming from, who owns the news networks, why some people seem to get more face time than others, why certain policies seem to always have the lime light even when other policies could easily get by in the meantime. So, yes, in the grand scheme of things America is totally imperialist and uses force to protect its investments and to procure profitable deals for itself. And if a freely elected democratic leader won't give us a good deal, we won't think twice about setting up a dictator who'll cut us a nice deal. And American people benefit from that.... a lot. But again, in a cultivation sense, that doesn't change the very real experiences that, say, soldiers go through on the front lines. Those human experiences lead to learning and growth. They also lead to suffering and the ongoing cycle of pain. But the impulse to defend and protect, and the willingness to do what is necessary in tho moment in which it needs to be done that is demonstrated by people during times of conflict is admirable and something to be proud of. And on the subject of nationalism, I think that is something to be proud of on ALL sides, by ALL nations who engage in that. Not the rape and the torture and the evil stuff that comes out of it (and to be sure, there is a lot of evil that comes out of it), but the good struggle and the growth. And I feel proud to be part of a group that wants to work toward a better future (ideologically, at least), and is willing to put our lives on the line to protect that future, and to protect our present. And as part of that, (for me) critical investigation and a push for greater transparency is part of that pride. Because there ARE people who abuse power, who abuse their leadership, who exploit conflicts for personal gain. And I think in sullies the dreams of everyone on this planet who are sincerely trying to make the world better for everyone. So people who take advantage of war to torture, rape, profit, expand territory, etc etc etc, need to be discovered and dealt with. I don't want people like that in my group. People like that are not what I'm proud of.

The issue for me is this- How is this: Different from 99% of what goes on in our culture? Men and women go out drinking, waking up in strange beds with strange people and they ask themselves "how did I get here, wtf just happened?" People get back from the mall and go "why did I buy all of this stuff? Wtf just happened?" People arrive in a nice car to a huge house. "I can't afford this, wtf just happened?" People eat their 13th doughnut for an afternoon snack. "How could I have lost so much control? Wtf just happened?" To some extent or another, we do this ALL the time to everybody. You ever talk someone into going into a restaurant you wanted to go to? "Hey anamatva, how did I let you talk me into coming here?" But here's the real kicker: what if they like it? "Hey anamatva, how did I let you talk me into coming here? I'm glad you did, 'cause this lasagna is great." Uh oh. You just, essentially, manipulated someone into doing something against their will! Or did you? Because they had the desire, the will to do something- after talking to you. The difference between your day to day interactions, the effectiveness of advertisements, the skill of salespeople, using pickup tactics on women, or hypnotizing people, is a difference in degree, not kind. Somewhere along down the road, we drew the line on what levels of manipulation are acceptable and which ones are not. Convincing a friend to eat somewhere that you like is okay. Hypnotizing people into doing something they wouldn't normally do is not okay. Getting them drunk to get them to do something is on the fence- sometimes it's really really bad, and sometimes people wanted stuff to happen. I'm not trying to create a resolution. I'm just pointing out an issue that I have seen, and an issue that I have been struggling with personally. I always had this idea in my head that using hypnotizing people to do stuff was "immoral". But then I realized it's on the same spectrum as pretty much every other human interaction. So.... it kind of threw me for a loop. Is every other kind of human interaction just as bad? If your goal is liberation and stuff, you start to realize just how much you have to liberate from!

I'd be careful with Tai Chi... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W1ym3yggR4

If you have access to a computer, then you have already have a lot. Do you have access to your own computer, or are you just using the library computers? Anyway, if I had to pick one book that REALLY helps and gets you start off on the right path is "Opening the Energy Gates of Your Body" by B.K. Frantzis. I find it to be highly comprehensive, it starts out at the very beginning, assumes you know nothing, and it builds you up. It's low impact and low energy- Frantzis only teaches the basic stuff in the public books. Don't confuse basic with worthless (and on that note, there is more to "worth" than just money- just because something is "free" from money doesn't mean you don't have to pay in other ways...). There are enough hints in that text that you can get to a very capable place on your own with just that practice.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I'd like to move a bit from the macrocosm to more of the microcosm that I, at least, can see. I'm in college right now, and we've got a pretty strong rivalry with another college. We're pretty even rivals both academically and athletically. But we also have lots of joint academic and research programs going on. Scientists (I'm thinking of what I've seen in science departments) from both institutions have nothing but the utmost respect for one another, and together they've done some pretty neat things. There are also programs where students from each can take classes at the other university during the semester, so there's a lot of togetherness. This, I think, is good. There is unity and solidarity in each group, but it can still recognize another entity. That said, sports rivalries can get downright nasty! Douchebag college kids vandalizing stuff, fans who aren't affiliated with the institution itself getting into trouble, etc etc etc. This is dangerous and unhelpful. Academic rivalries are good natured, I think. Competition can be good. It fosters mutual respect, and can spur people on to better themselves. I think in these instances it is good to be able to have an identity that you can claim, and it feels good to represent this identity in competition with another entity. I think that nations are the same way. I'm American, and proud of it. There are a lot of things that have happened in history to shape our nation. A lot of good things that I'm proud of. And lots of bad things, even today, that I'm not proud of and would like to see changed. I studied abroad one semester in Japan, and it was fun, but I was damn glad to get back to America. Even the assholes in the airport were a sight for sore eyes (Japanese people are just so damn polite! ) You can go on and on about tribalism and stuff, but I don't think that's inherently bad. People are going to hang out with people who are similar. I identify with cultivators, gamers, and students. In a crowd of a bunch of random people, that's what we'll gravitate towards, and that's what we'd represent. It feels good to do that. And I don't think we need to ignore that. Problems come when we start targeting other groups because they are different, or when we start putting ourselves "above" other groups. But I don't think that it's very productive to try and say "we're all the same, live your life like that", because, well, that ain't going to happen I'm going to wave the Pepsi banner, and someone else will wave the Coke banner. I'll wave the American flag, and someone else will wave the Japanese flag. I prefer to recognize, own up to it, and embrace it. A LOT of shit has happened because of America. But that doesn't mean that it also doesn't have a LOT of very positive meanings. I'm proud to be an American. I'm different than, say, Japanese people. But different doesn't mean better/worse. And, yeah, in the interest of friendly rivalry, I'd love it if America could start rivaling Japan in all of the cool tech gadgets that are made. Because, you know.... we're losing and we're starting to look like fools

Yeah, there was some other thread and I had brought that up. It's interesting, because in college right now I am studying language, specifically persuasion. It's interesting that the assumptions people have about communication- If you don't know you're doing it, and you're really persuasive, then you're just "good with people". But if you aren't "naturally" persuasive, and you learn some "tricks", then it is somehow "dishonest". The funny thing is that people who are "naturally" good with people, who are naturally outgoing, do these things without realizing it. Academics have merely named and charted what people who are good communicators and persuaders do. And those behaviors can be replicated. So a lot of people who are saying "if you want friends, just be yourself, just do what comes naturally", may be saying that because they have subconsciously picked up on millions of cues in their life which has told them how to behave and what to say in a certain situation. They just don't know it. But there are legitimately people who don't develop that, and they may need to learn to consciously engage in some things more than others.

No doubt it is highly controversial. Several years ago I did a lot of research into this issue, lineage, etc etc etc. This is just from what I recall off the top of my head.... I first got into that section of the MA world through Stephen K. Hayes' material. It was some news for me when he was "kicked out" (though he maintains that it was a private matter settled between him and Hatsumi). Regardless, it's been clear for a LOOOOOOOONG time that Hatsumi has never cared about ranks. They are worthless for him. You want to call yourself a black belt ninja master? Go ahead. It's not the way I'd do things. It's not the way a lot of other people would do things. I think it obfuscates the whole issue and sidelines legitimate teachers. But Hatsumi believes differently. I think another issue, and if I recall correctly, Hayes pointed this out, one of the roots of this lies it Japanese vs western culture. In Japanese culture, it is assumed that you are humble and you talk down your own ability. So when you are awarded a rank, you work harder on your own to EARN that rank for YOURSELF. In some sense, being given a rank is a symbol of confidence from your teacher that your teacher thinks you have the ability to be WORTHY of that rank EVENTUALLY. When you get a black belt, it means the real work is still yet to come. In western culture, being given a rank means you've DONE the work. So a lot of people who weren't "really" black belts in terms of skill went around talking and teaching. And so things started to get watered down. Combined with Hatsumi's not caring about belt ranks......... yeah, bad stuff. Also, from what I hear, back in the old days, training under Hatsumi was HARD. Hayes writes about it. Several other people have broken off and started doing their own training which was closer to what they had experienced themselves, but weren't seeing reflected in the modern Bujinkan. Akban.org has done a great job, I think, of cataloging and practicing more "intensive" forms of training. But if you're going to go through, say, the Bujinkan, there's not a guarantee you'll get that. On to lineage... yes, it's controversial. Hatsumi's teacher, Takamatsu Toshitsugu, was known and had some skills. Takamatsu was also the legitimate inheritor of (from what I recall) at least three martial art lineages. These lineages are documented and verified from other schools, and are generally well known. But they are not "ninja" schools, per se. The problem is that Bujinkan is said to be based from 9 schools, which leaves 6 of them being "ninja" schools. The problem with lineage verification is with THOSE schools, the "ninja" schools. Takamatsu reportedly received the lineage from someone, but no one has been able to verify that person even existed. So there is, indeed, a missing link. Rumors abound about various evidence that may or may not exist, but nobody really knows for sure except Hatsumi at this point (to the best of my knowledge). The thing that complicates the issue even more is that, well, these arts WERE secret. I have heard it said that when Takamatsu was learning, he was told by his teacher that if anyone asked, Takamatsu was to tell them he practiced Jujutsu, and not to give the name of the style. The other thing that some people argue is that the "ninja schools" weren't ever complete fighting systems, but a collection of techniques to be used in various situations, such as climbing methods, running methods, concealment methods, etc etc etc. And that it all got passed down until it intersected with Takamatsu, where he not only learned some ninja battlefield arts, but also the samurai fighting arts..... The point is that, if you are a nut of lineage and history (and I kind of am), there is SOME legitimacy in the Bujinkan (3 fighting arts which seem to have their paperwork in order, though they aren't recognized formally as such by the governing board in Japan about these matters, and 6 "ninja arts" which a lot of people think are just made up). So if you want to learn some historical stuff, like fighting in armor, how they'd deal with weapons, etc etc, there's that. The downside is that there is no quality control. Not a lot of full contact practice. Not of a lot of real conditioning. So yeah, someone with a Wing Chun background could probably clean up in most of those Dojo, which are essentially glorified LARPing clubs.... which is sad, considering that in places like, oh, bullshido, Wing Chun is the butt of every other joke. (But to be fair to bullshido, I found a lot of good factual resources on the lineage of the Bujinkan through bullshido, and the members there who actually pay attention recognize that the Bujinkan does contain some legitimate lineages, and if you try to say it's "all made up", well, they'll run you out of there for being a "fucking idiot", because that's how they roll over there without an insult policy).

Well the rest just has to do with our differing definitions of "parlor trick". When I hear "parlor trick", I hear "useless", "frivolous", "cheap entertainment", etc etc etc. So anyone reading my above posts should keep that definition in mind.

For the sake of compiling a list, I'd like to add: Pietro - I Ching/lots of wonderful other Taoist knowledge.

When you say "parlor trick", do you mean "sleight of hand"? As in, you don't think he's actually using qi or a refined skill, but he's using something else, and passing it off as such? Because when I think "parlor trick", I think of it as a "useless skill apart from cheap entertainment as you wait in the parlor for someone to break out the wine". Juggling, for one, is a parlor trick. You need some skill to pull it off.... but it's just cheap entertainment. Musicianship is a glorified parlor trick. So you can cause some strings to resonate together? Wonderfully useless. Basketball, along with most other sports, are just as useless. Acting? Same boat. In no way does this detract from the time or skill that it took for the masters to master their craft. But what does it do? Frightfully little. Luckily our society right now pays a premium for entertainment. So you're free to pursue a variety of lucrative parlor tricks. But parlor tricks they remain. Unless your definition of "parlor trick" is not the same as mine. But hey, semantics. I disagree. Getting input from other people helps you see things you might otherwise not have seen. Maybe seeing someone do something inspires you to change your life, and provides the piece you needed to get your life rolling in a much better direction. As do I. But I don't let skepticism close my mind to possibility. If someone wants to pursue a path of lighting fires with their mind, GREAT. The odds are not in their favor. But who cares? Innovators are ALWAYS against the odds. That's part of the risk, and also part of the reward. Betting money may be on the violin over the mental fire. But that doesn't mean that you can't get far trying to train to a point where you can light fires with your mind, your chi, or something else. And hell, if you want to learn sleight of hand to the point where you can make people think you're using your mind... well, hey, that's your thing.

It's funny how often people call this stuff "parlor tricks". When we think like that... Doing 1000 pushups is also a parlor trick. Putting a ball in a hoop is also a parlor trick. Being able to cause some strings to resonate in a long sequence is a parlor trick. Being able to create the illusion of depth on a piece of paper is a parlor trick. I daresay that most of the "magic" in peoples' lives is little more than a "parlor trick", the sight/sound/feeling/taste/smell of which temporarily pleases the mind, but then subsides over time. Beyond that momentary and fleeting sense of pleasure, there is no lasting value. It's funny, odd, and kind of disheartening to hear you say that people should do what they want, do it fully, and then you turn around and devalue their passion (if their passion is one such as seeking supernatural powers) to parlor tricks, while elevating other parlor tricks as magical aspects of life. So when you present a list of things which are line with conventionally accepted modes of spending time, not to mention things which are supported by conventional, mainstream, belief about what is and is not possible, I'm really not that convinced when you say that you aren't swayed by what society says is approved or not approved....

I highlighted these parts because it reflects the contradictions in your reasoning. You are basically saying the same thing that current societal institutions say- "Be innovative, be what you want, do what you want, go where you want.... just as long as it is in our pre-approved list of things which are okay for you to do." So we should strive to be the "best that we can be", like a chess player, a martial artist, musician, a painter, any number of things that dozens, if not hundreds, of people have done before us. But we shouldn't waste our time chasing after things that we obviously aren't, like people who can start fires with our minds because.... because we obviously aren't that if there haven't been huge sections of society dedicated to that craft? What? You realize that thinking is the OPPOSITE of your proposed "enormous if not infinite potential", right??? Let us go back a couple of hundred years. Say.... before brilliant musicians were paid hundreds of millions of dollars, and the most "genius" musicians were no name minstrels who had to beg to get by. And someone came into a public group saying "hey, I want to learn how to play the lyre, because I heard someone play it and it was totally awesome". I bet there was someone there saying "hey, why would you waste your time chasing some stupid idea that you obviously are not? It's much better to train your body to become a soldier, then you can go on a crusade and serve the Church, and bring back untold riches from the Holy Land so you can donate and get into heaven. The world is filled with amazing things already, you should do what other people are doing and not be scared by things that are familiar and equally attainable, rather than reaching for something that nobody does, because going by the odds, it's a waste of time." Yeeeeeeeaaaaaaaah. Uh...... no thanks. I'm hoping this makes sense. The line of thought presented by steve just lends itself to reproducing social norms while under guise of doing something "new". If you're passionate about something, why the hell would you try to divert that into something mainstream? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of telling people to be passionate about something? If you tell them they have infinite potential, doesn't it defeat all that by then saying "so do the things which we already know we can do, and don't waste your time with things that we obviously can't do because not many (nobody?) has done it in the past". If people actually followed that line of reasoning, we'd still be living in caves trying to rub two sticks together trying to start a fire before we die. And no, that's not a strawman. That's the logical conclusion of "don't waste your time chasing "windmills", and instead direct your unlimited potential to things that are familiar and things that we know work, because they are magical enough without having to try and invent airplanes and computers".

Comedians say it straight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo

Depends. The Bujinkan is a very big organization and every teacher can be very different. Some may be way more into meditation and cultivation, others may not be. I have no idea about the Genbukan or Jinenkan. Stephen K. Hayes was always into the esoteric and meditation aspect to ninjutsu (kuji-in and stuff). He become ordained in the Tendai sect I think. Hayes has some very well put together DVD's, and from what I know (as far as techniques), his system (To Shin Do) is very standardized. Not only does it teach techniques that are practical and adapted for modern situations, but they all connect to traditional techniques. He's got a couple of DVD's out about Kuji and meditation. I don't know how many instructors are educated in it or are qualified to teach it.

Then it does not exist

See attached image, and your questions will be answered.

My question to the people who balk at "supernatural" powers: Why WOULDN'T you care? Do you just accept whatever you get at face value? Do you just say that life "is what it is" and go on with things, or do you investigate and look to change, explore, learn, and evolve? Sure, okay. We've got lighters now so that we can light our toilet paper, houses, and people on fire. Wonderful. You can join the boy scouts and learn how to rub two sticks together to start a fire. Wonderful. So now we should stop, huh? Why learn to light fires with our minds when we can get a lighter or a couple of sticks to do it for us? The logical implication of the "who cares, isn't life magical enough" argument is one of stagnation and lack of progress, discovery, and evolution. Modern medicine lets us live to our 70's, 80's, and 90's. Isn't life long enough without trying to live to 110, 120, 130? Couldn't we have made the argument that life was long enough when we only lived to our 40's or 50's? We've already been to the moon, so who cares about other planets, other solar systems, black holes, and particle physics in other dimensions? Maybe we should just quit now, because who cares if we can use the Large Hadron Collider to figure out how the universe popped into being? Isn't one of the whole points of cultivation to cut through the illusion to the truth? Maybe the truth is that we can use our minds for infinitely more than we are currently using them. We might be able to use our minds to light fires, heal incurable illnesses, stop suffering, explore the universe, realize the reason for our existence, etc etc etc etc etc. But if you just go "who cares", if you just take the shit you're given and believe them when they say "these are how things are, you should just accept them and live in the now or else you'll be in for a world of suffering", then... well... you'll be eating shit for the rest of your life not that you'd know any different. So maybe ignorance truly is bliss?