Sloppy Zhang

It's not derived from anything terrible It's simple classical conditioning. If seeing a hot girl leads to arousal, and you begin to associate hot girls with shitting skeletons, then eventually shitting skeletons will lead to arousal I blame asceticism for my perversions If I didn't try so hard to not be aroused, then I would be so hard all the freakin' time

Will the real ronnietsu please stand up?

Despite what cultural stereotypes may indicate, guys are surprisingly circumspect about topics that are weighing on their minds. whoops, did I just break the bro code? So, in my experience, guys aren't going to be all like "hey man.... so, I'm having an existential crisis....." It'll be more like you're playing basketball and they're all like "yo, you ever notice how people do X?....." Then you'll be eating dinner later that night and they'll be like "hey, remember when I said that thing about X.... well.... what about Y?" And then you do a little back and forth. And then a week later it'll be like, "hey, you remember X and Y? Yeah.... well.... how about Z.... because, you know, A just happened to me yesterday, and then I did B, and I was like... whoah..... C...... hey, did you hear about Halo 4?" So, I dunno, you just got to be able to recognize it when it's happening. It's like I mentioned in the "can normal people got Tao" thread. People are surprisingly self/spiritually aware. They just don't know the words to use. But if you listen to their thoughts, they go in that direction. But culture has become so secular/materialistic, and philosophy is "weird", that a lot of people don't have an outlet to work out this stuff that they notice. So, you know, watch out. Because once you get some people going.... they don't stop

I want to see it... for... uh.... spiritual reasons..... send it to me in a PM There is an interesting question! I have heard that enlightened people/spiritually advanced people can perform transmissions through sexual acts. People who can intimately surround themselves in a very dense super spiritual aura can get spiritual benefits, and with that transmission it can speed their progress. Of course, that's assuming that the person they are sleeping with is, in fact, a highly advanced spiritual person, and can engage in sexual intercourse free of attachment, as well as being a person who can actually perform the transmission. It also assumes that you, as a practitioner, can take the momentum from the encounter and use it in your own cultivation. So I'd say that in, oh, I dunno, just a rough guess, 99% of the cases that most people are going to run across, the person is not that capable, and at the root of the act is a selfish personal attachment. If you want to have sex, just be upfront about it. But people are still so weirded out by sex, they have to rationalize it as something else. "I wasn't just fucking, I was engaging in a spiritual transmission." Riiiiiiiiiiiiight From my understanding, the whole sex stuff was all rather advanced, even in places where there were huge concentrations of spiritually advanced people. Still, even today people are doing their own thing, even if they start out from a pretty solid principle:

You can't have crazy wisdom without "crazy". Then again, it ain't for everybody.

Me first!

I tried that once.... then I started getting off to skeletons defecating in the toilet bowl.

I dunno... how adult is it??? What's the minimum age to get into this forum? I don't remember. Do we have one? If it's straight up porn.... don't post it. Maybe we can start a PM chain picture

Yeah, that's quite a move from sean Seriously, pretty much this. I hardly ever go into those big flame bait threads, "why you're doing buddhism wrong", "you need siddhis to be enlightened", "I will tell you how to properly achieve 6th dimension light body", "how to properly circulate your aroused sexual chi to avoid the loss of morning wood", "the truth about dependent origination", etc etc etc etc. I just watch as pages upon pages stack up. Who knows what's going on in there? I don't care. Not my topic, not my battle, not my idea of a good time. Let other people fight it out and get all bent out of shape. Then, lo and behold, some moderator action occurs about some craziness that went on in the threads Good choice to stay away It can be quite peaceful once you realize what threads/posts are obviously triggers to start TTB's World War.... what are we up to? 84?

The good old days

I don't think they are spam. He's the only person fighting a very uphill battle. Since he's the only one saying what he's saying, of course he is going to be posting more frequently on his own than someone who has other people posting similar stuff. Please reinstate scotty. All he's doing is looking for an equal, across the board implementation of the rules: That is basically what it comes down to. People have been suspended/banned for abrasive behavior, condescending tone, and slyly insulting peoples' intelligence. Concurrently, other members (who have been here for a while) have come out more directly and blatantly made personal remarks (in more than a few cases, towards/against scotty). These people have not had moderator action come down as swiftly as others have. It is a HUGE imbalance. All that scotty has done has come out and said "hey, there is an imbalance, what are we going to do with it?" It's my opinion that this balance will NEVER be reached with the current policy and current style of moderation. I fully understand the insult policy- sean wants a place where people can come and talk and share their opinions without feeling like they are going to be harassed at every turn (by new and, presumably, old members). But I don't think that will ever happen when we talk about "real stuff". Stuff that people have been spending their lifetimes doing. Stuff that is really personal and really important. We have no screening mechanism for "respect". And even with long term members, we have no way of knowing what is going to set them off. For instance, in the gender threads we had some guys come out with their honest experiences and opinions regarding women- totally uncensored and direct. Some well respected members (shaktimama, seth ananda, among others), had some very powerful reactions to that. Some pretty nasty things were said all around. To me, that is not inherently a bad thing. That's merely a consequence of finding something that is real. If TTB's wants to have "real" discussions, we are going to strike some nerves. People are going to get pissed. And in anger, some people are going to respond in an ugly fashion. It happens. We can use that to further exploration and conversation, or we can try and trim it so that we are all "proper" in our discourse. But it's my opinion that if we do that, we're always going to stay on the surface level. If you don't let people show their ugly sides, then you aren't letting them be "real". The focus, I think, should instead be on disturbances to the forums that are inherent problems for navigation purposes. Scotty wasn't posting spam threads or spam posts. He was making topics relevant to actions that were going on. And as I have mentioned previously, conversations move quicker than the mods do. I can understand how, from a mod perspective, scotty's threads may seem as "spam"- as soon as you work out an issue, three more threads have popped up. But from the perspective of a participating member, it's the mods that are moving in slow motion! Einstein's theory of relativity seems to apply to TTB's as well I've outlined my suggestions for things that are "disruptive" in this post.

(This is long and semi rant-ish.... skip to the last paragraph for a concise summary of my thoughts). Right, so I've been keeping an eye out on some of these threads. There's been some really interesting stuff thrown around. Some pretty funny back and forth And some sad stuff too. The scotty situation is not something that sits well with me. This thing with tulku and witch? Okay, time to say something. This whole "no insult" thing is turning into a farce. Fast. Way fast. And it's like.... third grade tattling kind of stuff. Not to try and demean or belittle anyone's position, but... well let me elaborate. I understand the "no insult" policy. Me? I've had thick skin from being picked on, and I've been to some very crazy unmoderated parts of the net. I also recall TTB's when it wasn't moderated.... and we're still here. So honestly, I'm a very hands off kind of person. Insults derail a thread? Move it to the pit and let the players fight it out. Seriously... sometimes stuff needs to get out. I think the gender threads that are in the pit were excellent and getting a LOT of gunk out of peoples' systems. It was illuminating on many different levels. I know catharsis is not everyone's idea of the best treatment method. But, well, the hardest lies to see through are the ones we tell ourselves. And sometimes the best way to find a lie we tell ourselves is have someone else point out to us that "hey, what you say, and what you say that you say, are not lining up, you should check that". The gender threads did a lot of that. And I think that can only be good. When people get into a conversation of great personal importance, tempers are going to flare. Insults are going to fly. I don't carry insults with me that are said in the heat of the moment. I think they can be useful in understanding yourself and others- but they shouldn't be carried through to other threads. It's pretty rare that I carry something that someone said in a thread to another. I don't know about other people, but I've had many instances in which I was vehemently disagreeing with someone in one thread, only to agree with them in the same hour on another thread. So I don't take it personally and I don't hold grudges. Not that I'm bragging My point: shit happens when "real shit" is happening. To try and make a rule banning shit from happening means that "real shit" is NEVER going to happen. People will feel too inhibited, too afraid of rocking the boat, too afraid of pointing out an inconvenient observation. Not much good will come of it, I think. If you aren't getting angry, or at least uncomfortable, then you aren't being real (unless you are really just a super far along buddha, in which case you don't care). And as has been pointed out, there is no quality control mechanism on this forum to screen out people who don't have experience. So somebody who's just read the Tao Te Ching can come in here and start pontificating about the real meaning. Someone who's taken a week of yoga class can come in here and tell people how they are doing it wrong. I never go into those threads. Why? Because I'm a self centered asshole who's learned from books, and thinks they don't have anything to teach me, so I don't go in them, and I certainly don't respond. That's also why I miss out on lots of these fun threads My point: on a free internet, morons are going to be everywhere telling other people they are morons. Feeding trolls will just exacerbate the problem, and will never solve anything. Make it part of your practice to just let it go or walk away. Or engage with the troll, move to the pit, and fight it out, because it could turn up some "real shit" that's inside of you. Either way, it's a win/win. So now we come to insults. In my laissez faire moderation philosophy, I think the only time moderation action should happen is when someone is being truly disruptive to a thread. So if they start spamming the thread with "you are a moron" in a series of back to back posts posted seconds after each other- THAT is disruptive. If someone repeatedly makes new threads that are like "so and so is a fraud and a charlatan and you should all stop sucking his dick", THAT is disruptive. People posting images of porn is disruptive. But if someone leaves ONE post that says "you are an idiot. You are a bigot. You have no experience. You have no coherent argument. Anyone reading your above posts can see this. I'm done with you", and they don't continue to post, that is not truly disruptive to the thread, it should be left alone. Other stuff that should be moderated is other stupid advertising spams and things like that. Legitimate death threats also need to be taken seriously. So now we come to the recent events. Sunya said: Now I, personally, don't think this is necessarily the case. Scotty, and recently tulku, have merely taken the "no insult" policy to its logical conclusion. If anyone insults anyone at any time, that's a violation of the insult policy. If someone insults me, but I don't report it, and then I insult someone else, and they report it, and I get suspended.... well that's not fair, now is it? That is the logical conclusion. The reason sunya is pointing this out, and why it's such a big deal now, is because the current incarnation of the insult policy is ridiculous, unenforceable, too relative, and prevents "real shit" from ever taking place on this board. So what we have now is a bunch of people going "well you know what tommy said?", and "oh, wait, but you didn't hear what billy said to me before I said that". We've got a bunch of people running and crying to the moderators. I'm sorry for demeaning the position, because really, these people are taking the no insult policy to its logical conclusion. It's not a big deal when people like me don't care, and don't report when I'm insulted. Then if some people start reporting stuff because it bothers them, it's not a big deal. But when you have someone who is exercising his rights well within the rules of the forum, it seems ridiculous, because it is. But hey, that's the rule. My solution? Remove the "no insult" policy. Replace with "no disruptive behavior" policy. Someone thinks John Chang is a fake? They make a thread saying "I think john chang is a fake, he could use a lighter to light that newspaper on fire"? Let it run. Let people fight it out. Someone makes a thread that goes "Wang Liping is an asshole, I heard that from someone who heard it from someone". Let it play. Rumors happen. We can't confirm or deny rumors. Some rumors are true and based in fact. Some rumors are lies and based in deceit. Part of living life is being able to learn how to assess the credibility of a source. Someone makes a thread that goes "sloppy zhang is a pontificating asshole, his threads are too long, he needs to learn to write more concisely"? Let it play. People have told me as much many times. It doesn't bother me. These are all opinions. They are confined to their threads. They don't disrupt the forum. If someone starts making chain threads about sloppy zhang's pontificating, tell them "hey, newbie, if you have more to say, revive your first thread", then merge them. It keeps happening? Warn them and tell them they are being disruptive by posting five new threads about your dear SZ. It keeps going? Suspend for a day, then seven, then two weeks, then a month, then a ban. I mean, really. The thing about freedom is you have to allow the good AND the bad. If you start trying to cut the bad, you wind up starting to cut the good. And you start to turn the whole thing into a farce. The situation with scotty, and now with tulku, shows what happens when you start to take the "no insult" policy to its logical conclusion. Insults happen in conversations of import. Always have, always will. Trying to cut out the insults will cut the conversation down dramatically. Insults, and how we react to them, can be a very powerful window into observing our thoughts, and how we REALLY react- not just how we "say" we react. Instead of looking out for "insults", we should look for behavior which is truly disruptive and potentially endangering to the well being of the members here. Let people work out the insults in the pit if a thread is beyond salvaging. Other than that, let it play. Sometimes people need to get gunk out of their system.

Yeah. I object to the way this situation was handled. As I've mentioned several times, I'm hands off when it comes to internet conversation. The thread title was obviously antagonistic. But so what? Someone has a strong opinion on something. Okay. People can choose to talk about substance, or talk about what a troll someone is being. The former sometimes works. The latter is thread derailment itself (even if it is true, but sometimes it's not so clear cut- oftentimes someone putting forward an unpopular opinion is accused of trolling). But I'm not against thread derailment either- it happens. Sometimes it gets back on track. Sometimes not. If it gets derailed to where it's just insults, move it to the pit where people can fight it out, and let general spiritual discussion continue. He should be able to talk about whatever his view of buddhism he wants to. Me made a thread and kept it there. He didn't (to my knowledge) start spilling it over someplace else. Just let people work/fight/sort it out.

How do you define "forum disturbances"? Because I recall the good old kunlun days. We had some crazy threads. A fair amount of bashing occurred in them, and some direct personal insults. But was the forum "disturbed"? I'd say no. People would log in, see a 33 page thread on the front page, and decide if they want to wade into it. If so, they did. If not, they didn't. The threads that have kicked off this recent round of mod talks (so tulku's threads, the stuff involving scotty's incarnations, etc) I had no notice of. Why? Because I typically don't wander into threads like that. I also don't get into threads talking about alternate histories of various people/things, and there are some people who get into trouble over those. And I generally don't get involved with people who come across as condescending or who talk about stuff I don't care about (so people like vmarco, talks about dependent origination, etc etc etc). My point is this: these threads have been the center of moderator action over the "no insult" policy. But none of these threads are disruptive to the forum as a whole. What HAS become disruptive is the "no insult" policy. Because there is no clear definition of "insult". So now we have people who, rightly so, point out the uneven enforcement of the rule. Why do some people get away with a lot, and some people get away with very little? The "no insult" policy might itself be a fixed object, but it is attached to a very much moving object- and as a result, our "fixed" policy starts to move. I suggest we do away with the "no insult" policy, and instate a "no disturbance" policy, where "disturbance" is defined as something that impedes the operation of the forum, and something that causes excessive navigation hassle to other members. So flooding a thread with back to back messages of an irrelevant nature- "disturbance", as if I'm participating in a thread I have to sort through someone's spammy messages that could all be condensed into one post. Flooding the general message board with multiple topics of the same nature- "disturbance", because people browsing the boards have to sort through what's just a copycat thread, and what's something new. Two people locked in an intense back and forth, where they're tearing each other apart and occasionally throwing an insult out the side of their mouths- not a disturbance, possible candidate to move to the pit where they can carry on. One person posting one thread about how Wang Liping doesn't teach effective methods- obvious flame bait which may lead to a 33 page thread filled with derailments and insults, and may wind up getting moved to the pit, but not inherently disruptive. A thread that says that sloppy zhang is a n00b bcuz he lerns from bookz- off topic, move to the off topic section, but not inherently disruptive. Threads that post porn, illegal material, links to viruses, or material which is threatening in some way- that's disruptive, aside from other problems.

I believe you may be thinking of "The Tibetan Yogas of Dream and Sleep" by Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche (spelling may not be correct). It's solid as far as techniques within that tradition, though they may or may not be useful for you personally. As to your general question, there are lots of resources for that. But seeing as how you mention not having that great of results from the internet, I'm guessing you've probably seen most of anything to link to anyway. As someone who's done a lot of study independent of any personal teachers, I'm going to say that you're going to have to "read between the lines" when you self study. By that, I mean you're going to have to be very self aware about what works and what isn't working. You can't be afraid to do your own thing, and to go with what feels right. Since you don't have a personal teacher to tailor the teaching to you, and all you have is a bunch of "general info", you're going to have to build yourself up on your own. Sometimes you can do this, and sometimes you need outside input. So as you're waiting for a more full response, just keep that in mind. Also, I do believe that dream yoga is much like stuff like sex practices, practices to increase bodily strength, practices to develop other siddhis, etc etc, in that they aren't stand alone practices, but they are parts of a greater whole, and they aren't meant to be done on their own. As in, they should be integrated with the clarity of mind created in meditation. Empowered by the energy gathered through, say, sex practices (but that's not the only practice that can amass energy!), and balanced by the health of the body. I stopped focusing on dream work after years of doing so after an experience I had. There was a week in which I was going to have my apartment all to myself, no roommates or neighbors or family were going to be around. So I stocked up on some food (I'm not really a faster ) and I devoted the entire week to focusing my mind and getting conscious dreams. Well I had some rather interesting experiences, but I realized something- a huge portion of my dream content was unresolved content from my daily life. I saw dream images of thoughts I had had throughout the day. I saw dream content of conversations I had had in the past. I saw dream content from parts of my life. Etc etc etc. Basically, since I had cut off any extraneous sensory input during that week (no tv, internet, music, human contact, etc etc), my mind was able to "keep up" with what I DID have going on- and it was mostly just stuff from my mind. The rest of my dreams over my span of doing dream work, while interesting, was completely unverifiable. So I put it down in the "that was neat" category, but had no reliable way of following up on the matter- particularly not through dreams because my dreams were still very much filled with day to day content. So yes, I do believe that dream yoga and experiences can be very powerful and can ultimately lead to *insert your goal here*. However, I think that they won't be as effective if you are just doing dream work. Sure, you can use dream work to clear out your mental clutter- but you can also do meditation during "waking" hours. You can purify your mind and your energy in other, possibly more efficient ways. You can work on developing your consciousness so it doesn't space out, so you are continually more aware, which would then carry over into your dreams. Dream work is good. Dream work can be very powerful. But it is not the most efficient method of doing everything that (I think) is encompassed in a complete spiritual practice. Anyway, keep on looking for a competent teacher/method which includes everything that you want it to. But I'd suggest you keep what I said in mind. Because unless you've got a decent amount of foundational work in other areas, the most you're going to be doing in dream yoga is stuff you could have done more efficiently using other means.

Because they are trying to moderate conversations and opinions and peoples' feelings, and those occur faster than mods can act. No one's acting like a child. They are merely asking that the rules be enforced evenly across the board. It's an impossible task because it's impossible to create a rule that governs and enforces what people are going to find "offensive" or "insulting", and what each person wants to do about that. So we change it up. Right. That's cool. But if we just quit caring about insults in the first place, we wouldn't even have had that problem. The "choking to death" is troublesome, because it is threatening. But that (I think) had more to do with a misunderstanding regarding how BDSM operates (safe, sane, consensual). Or if we realized that insults aren't *that* disruptive to the forum, and we just let them pass without attaching to them, we wouldn't have nearly as many problems with moderation.

In my suggestion, insults don't even come into play. If I make a post that says "stig, you're an idiot, this conversation is through" and then I leave the thread, that is not disruptive to the thread/forum at large. However, if I flood this thread with posts that say "stig, you're an idiot", that's disruptive to the thread. In that instance, I could expect a PM from a mod saying "hey, SZ, you're welcome to have an opinion and express it, but you are disrupting a thread. We've removed all but one post that says you think stig is an idiot. Don't keep it up again, or we'll suspend you for a couple of days". In my suggestion, no, because insults are not inherently disruptive to the forum. Now, continuing on, if you respond back with "Sloppy Zhang, you're an idiot", and we have a back and forth and this thread devolves into a sparring match between us, then we can reasonably expect the mods to move it to the pit and say "fight it out there, where the rest of the forum isn't going to be disturbed". In that instance, the only things that would cause us to get suspended are if we started posting porn links, illegal download advertisements, or if we started to harass or otherwise threaten each other. Because two guys in the pit insulting each other does not inherently disrupt the forum goings-on of the day. Now if we started multiple threads in main discussion areas, or if every time you or I saw each other in another thread we started slinging insults and quoting stuff from the pit thread, well we are now disrupting another thread in another discussion area, so we can be expected to get suspended for a couple of days so we can chill. Not in my proposal, because that does not inherently disturb the goings-on of the forum. In my proposal, the line is "when does it disturb the peace?" A devolved insult thread gets moved aside to the pit so main conversations can continue in main discussion areas. People flooding threads with back to back, pointless posts get a PM, then a suspension for a day or two, then a suspension for 7, then two weeks, then a month, then a ban. That's because they are trying to micromanage personal conversations and ever-changing passions and prejudices of the posters. Conversations happen faster than moderator action- so stop trying to moderate conversation and feelings. Neither do I, so let's not put them in a situation where they are doomed to fail. See above- flooding threads with off topic posts/insults, and flooding the discussion forum with the same posts over and over again. A single thread saying "wang liping sucks" is not disruptive. The thread may be flame bait, and may eventually be moved to the pit- but that thread, in and of itself, does not disrupt the forum. Now, if the same person, in one day, posted three threads that said "wang liping sucks", that's disruptive- mods combine the threads and let that person know "hey, you're welcome to your opinion, just don't flood the board". If it persists, suspend for several days to a week.

Well then please allow me to further elaborate (I'm still working this out as I go I'm impulsive that way!) By "no disturbances" I mean "no disturbances to the ongoing functioning of this forum". So flooding a thread with crap posts would be a disturbance (I think non freaked out not too long ago, flooded a thread with five back to back posts about women being pain whores or something, and got suspended). Flooding message board with the same/similar topics in quick succession would also be disruptive. Porn pics, abusive images, harassing other members, etc, would also be "disruptive". Personal insults or "inflammatory material" not so much, unless it comes in the form of flooding a thread or other message boards. The belittling and the demeaning comments don't really help. If you take a step back, and non-judgmentally look at what the logistics are behind what is happening, all that is happening (that I see) is people calling for an equal application of the rules. And so far it hasn't been that, because what is insulting, inflammatory, or personally offensive is personal, relative, and changing. So if you try to put a stake with a "no insult policy" sign into the back of this huge, undulating snake that is "whether I feel insulted/offended", well that sign is going to start moving pretty damn quickly! Checked it out The thing is, and this has been pointed out previously, this forum has no quality control mechanism for ensuring we get people who are responsible, or even self aware enough, to understand how their words/behavior are going to affect others. So as much as we can encourage people to self moderate, there are going to be people that are doing crappy things, and saying "why is everyone getting offended? Sheesh, it's not my fault if you just don't like listening to the truth", and in general coming off as an asshole. So we need to have some plan for how to deal with the inevitability of bad apples. And for that, I say to let it run unless it starts to compromise the ability of people to function in this forum without seeing a flooded thread/message board.

Same here. The stuff that I've reported in the past were instances in which someone started to flood a thread/message board with repeated posts/topics that were about how stupid some other user was. I agree. Mods are good to handle upkeep of the forum- so stopping spam, and making sure some users/spambots don't start flooding a thread or a forum. But personal squabbles and insults? Come on. People can get over it. Yeah if you go up to the upper right hand corner, click on your name and there is a drop down menu. One up from the bottom says "manage ignore users", click that and away you go! [edit] I think. I don't have anybody blocked

I'm saying moderation shouldn't step into personal debates/squabbles at all unless it is disruptive to the functioning of the forum as a whole.

I don't think it's ever necessary, really. However, it does happen. And how are we going to deal with it? I suggest a hands off manner of dealing with it. In the hyok moderation logs, you and apech talked about the "under the radar" insults- people with weaselly words that can insult without every really calling someone a name. Apech mentioned that while he understands people can do that, he doesn't want to get involved in every argument.... Well.... look what's happening. When someone thinks someone else is acting like a jackass, they are going to call that person out. I think it's ridiculous for the person who pointed it out to get warned/suspended/banned, and allow the jackass to continue jackass-ish behavior because "well they never really personally insulted any one person.........." Trying to place ourselves delicately on one point on the spectrum is obviously not working out- because the spectrum of "insult" is very fluid, we can't have a solid rule on it. So I say we remove the "no insult" policy, because that happens in any heated discussion, and replace it with a "no disruptive behavior" policy. Which means that something that, say, hyok said wouldn't get him in hot water. What WOULD get him hot water is if he left dozens of back to back posts leaving disparaging comments about the person. Or if he started multiple threads about the person. Or something of that sort. If a dispute between a handful of people gets out of control, move it to the pit and let them duke it out. If something becomes dangerous to the point of serious sounding threats, legally actionable material, illegal material, or other forms of harassment, well then we get back into moderation action to control disruptive behavior. But not insults. It ain't working out for us.

Scotty has taken the current enforcement style of the "no insult" policy to its logical conclusion. What sunya has been pointing out (arguably in a personal, demeaning way- and someone who is trying to apply the insult policy evenly would report the hell out of you, sunya) about the nature of these threads is correct- but it's not scotty that is ridiculous, it is the nature of the "no insult" policy. All was well as long as nobody really cared- because we didn't need to focus on it. Scotty has merely insisted that, in the interest of balance, we evenly apply the "no insult" policy everywhere. And it seems ridiculous because it is. We shouldn't be looking at scotty and start trying to belittle him. We should look at the series of conditions which have led to these threads. Look at the "no insult" policy.

I disagree with this because what is excessively offensive to others is incredibly relative, can't be reliably quantified, and so cannot ever be fairly enforced, especially in a spiritual discussion forum. For instance, in the gender threads, some men posted their honest, uncensored opinions and experiences with some women in their lives. Arguably that is part of what spirituality is about- being brutally honest about one's experiences. Understandably some people got offended (women as well as men). But, you know.... when you talk about serious stuff, that's what happens. And mature people who are intent on talking about serious stuff have to prepare to deal with that. If you ask someone to open up, you have to realize that you might not like what you hear, it might affect you, and you might not like it. It's unfortunate that people get offended. It's even more unfortunate if they pass up the opportunity to really delve into that experience, and get to the root of it. Yeah, it's going to be messy and uncomfortable. They're probably going to have to wade through a LOT of shit before they can find something of value. But that's the nature of the game. If you aren't up with that, don't post in the thread. But please, don't expect moderators to censor a thread because it makes you personally uncomfortable. When we start going down that road..... we wind up with these farcical threads. "Oh you banned so and so for making someone uncomfortable, ban that person too, they said this which made me feel uncomfortable." The thing is, scotty, and now tulku, have merely taken the current enforcement style of the "no insult" policy to its logical conclusion.

None of that conflicts with the open source philosophy In fact, in an open source community you are MORE likely to get in direct contact with an experienced person in your field much more quickly than you'd be in some traditional field of study. If everyone had that kind of thinking, there wouldn't be taoist alchemy in the first place

Yup Having a teacher is not a guarantee for success, and self study is not a condemnation to failure. It depends on the quality of your practice. The thing about open source communities isn't that they are a disparate collection of wiki entries. They are amateurs (as in, they don't get paid for what they do- not a comment on their skill level) and professionals (as in, they get paid for what they do- not a comment on their skill level) who pool their knowledge to ask and answer questions, to identify problems, and then solve them. In that environment, the "best" is determined by the quality of material that is produced. Not age, not gender, not pedigree. Does it work? Does it work in the best possible way? Is it the best alternative to everything else out there? Not that I'm an expert, but it is what I'd consider to be a highly "taoist" way of doing things- there is no centralized leadership. People and trends flow with what is the most suitable for the time without judgment. An open source programmer may totally revise 90% of material already in use. Or an open source programmer may only need to revise less than 1%, and that person will then just borrow the other 99% from what other people are doing. No judgment. See a need, however big or small, and come up with the best solution. If it is truly the "way" to go (hehe), other people will follow. If not, they won't.