Sloppy Zhang

Well they better teach a spell to make my penis stay hard. And possibly get bigger. Because really, that's the only reason I ever join forums. I just don't want it to LOOK like that's what I'm after, so I make sure the forum has spiritual overtones But really, it all comes back to my insecurities about my dick. And with 11 posts (at the time of this writing) you can't possibly be a spam bot. Unless they have evolved to get past the buffer forum, and apologize for their activities. And if they have gotten to that point, perhaps they have developed a consciousness, a conscience, and possibly remorse. Which would all be rather interesting in and of itself.

I hate you. No I don't Damn. See, I never hung out with people that gave me the creeps, so I never had a frog scenario growing up Plus I had very domineering parents which told me it was wrong anyway, and I was instilled with the notion that "good" kids do what their parents say, so all the way around I was covered I don't know how we can ever know it. I don't know that it is based on absolute good and bad. There are people who profit from "bad" deeds, live long lives and retire in comfort, while "good" people toil away, doing the right thing, and are abused and exploited by people doing "bad" things. If karma is based on "good" and "bad", then it works on a very, VERY delayed mechanism. It is intriguing, and leads me to doubt the conclusion that it is based on any inherent sense of "good" or "bad". If it is, then again, it is on a seriously delayed time mechanism. You have to cycle through a new life before you have to cash in your "evil" chips? Or your "good" chips? Hm. I'm not saying one way or the other in any of this. It is a personal belief of mine that this stuff can be known through direct experience, meditation and all that good stuff. Until I reach a point where I can know all of this stuff for sure, I just make observations and take theories and models under advisement. It would be "nice" if the world worked on a basis of "good" and "bad". Why do I think that? Because I am "good" and I want to get rewarded? Awful selfish. Because I think it would be convenient? That's awfully lazy. Because I want the universe to have order, for there to be a cosmic system that will protect me in the long run? Sounds like I'm a child wanting a parent to take care of me. I don't want to follow a convenient truth. I want the truth to stand on its own merit, and if it is convenient, well that's just grand. If it isn't.... well, that's that.

So my question is: are we really given a conscience, or is what we call a "conscience" really just a byproduct of years of societal conditioning, which we assume to be second (first?) nature because it is so familiar to us? But again, that's assuming that, inherent in us, is a construct which tells us that finding the glitter is worthwhile! What is to stop us from saying "fuck that", and go on our merry way? Because we have a deep seated sense that the glitter is valuable? Or, ever since we were little babies, we observed the behavior of people clamoring for that glitter so hard that we just assumed the glitter had value, we internalized that struggle, and then carry it on ourselves, never knowing its true origin? Or would they say "why the hell do you care about glitter in a swimming pool? You can go down to a party store and buy a pack full of glitter for a dollar, stupid humans, zap".

Okay, I think I see what you are saying. But as the links in a chain go, the end of one is the beginning of the other. Bleeding might be an effect. But my bleeding may yet be another cause, which makes an attractive girl feel concern for my well being, and then we get married, we have a kid, and that kid grows up to be a used car salesman. In which case (if I'm reading you right), the outcome of "karma" would still just be another effect, but further down the line, and may only be related to the initial cause indirectly. Consider a child walking down the street who gets abducted, raped, and killed. And since I'm feeling poetically just, the perpetrator is found, tried, and given a speedy execution. There is karma packed in all of that. The karma of the kid for being born, for having the parents it had, for them moving to that place, for the kid walking down the street, etc. The perpetrator has karma, everything that had ever happened in that person's life which affected the way that they think and behave. There is karma in the street, someone had to make it, someone had to design it, someone had to plan it, someone had to have reasons for doing that, for doing it in a certain way. The houses had to have karma, the cars, they are all effects which are causes of new things. The clothes, the air, the jurors, the means of execution, the entire judicial system, the county that provided the groundwork which allowed such a situation, to exist, the actions of all the ancestors which led to the existence of the parties involved.............. I think karma can happen instantaneously or in a very delayed manner. Assuming, of course, the "cause and effect" model of karma

I'm not saying that I don't. I'm just trying to ask "where did it come from?" For me, if there is a true universal system of good and bad, then it would be beyond the person, the society, the circumstance, etc etc etc etc. If, say, through a rigorous system of meditation and consciousness exploration, I was able to separate out "social constructs", "personal consciousness", "universal principles", and so on and so forth, and see that there is this universal constant of "good" and "bad", then that, for me, would tell me that it isn't just social conditioning. If I were able to see that, running through my personal consciousness, is a sense of "good" and "bad" which is a part of my person, and not a product of the universe or society, well then that would also tell me that it isn't just social conditioning. Some people don't think it's possible to get to that point, and that such a point can never exist. I think it is possible, and that it does exist. I just haven't gotten there, so I don't know. I think it's nice to do the right thing, even if you are doing it for the wrong reasons. But I would much prefer to do the right thing for the right reasons. A fear of an all knowing deity or universal record keeper may lead me to help that old lady across the street, when really I couldn't give two shits. But knowing that helping out is objectively good would also lead me to perform a good deed. And I, for one, think that is the better of the two. Which brings me to.......... I know quite a few people who have done the opposite. But I suppose I can't know what's really going on in their internal dialogue. Just a sense of heartless evil when I gaze into their eyes, and get a since that there is not a human being staring back at me. So things happen. If there was any objective "good" and "bad" judged by the universe, or our own person, apart from social conditioning, then one would think we'd start seeing more trends in the "good" path, right? If we really had a sense of revulsion to evil, how do we explain the plethora of evil deeds and evil doers out there? Unsolved murders, missing people never found, etc etc etc. There are people to this day who are suffering because of evil deeds, yes. But there are also people, to this day, who are enjoying life thanks to evil deeds. There are people who, to this day, who benefit from good deeds. And there are people who suffer because of a good deed. So how do we account for that? If we have a model of there being an absolute since of "right" and "wrong", "good" and "evil", and if we posit that humans have an innate since of that, how do we explain the vast numbers of people doing "bad" things?

What texts are you referring to? I really don't know. I stopped reading after the Tao Te Ching I talked with someone who had been practicing zen for a while, and that was the person who told me the planting seeds analogy. The problem comes because all too often we do things (plant seeds) not knowing what we are doing. We don't know we are planting seeds. Or we plant seeds not knowing what they are. We don't water them, and complain when they don't grow. We do water them, but complain that they aren't what they want. It was certainly a break from the "be good, don't be bad philosophy", and made me wonder if there even IS an objective morality. And that's an issue I'm still stuck on to this very day. In one of Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche's books, he talks about those different levels. The heaven realms, the hell realms, etc etc. I don't know if he made the comparison, but somehow I got it in my head that the "heaven realms" were like the realms of the Greek gods. All powerful beings, super powers, had sex with everything, drank and partied and had wars with zero accountability. Total paradise. But it was still temporary. They could reside in that heaven realm for a hundred billion years, but it would still end, and at the end they would realize it, and, with their heavenly powers, could foresee the next life they would get, and know it would suck compared to the one they had then. So I guess in this instance it would depend on your motivating goal. Heaven realms are nice. But in the grand scheme of things, they aren't that different than the hell realms. There is the same underlying process. Plant seeds and take care of them in a certain way, you get the apples (heaven). Plant other seeds and take care of them in a different way, you get oranges (hell). Adjust the metaphor to your taste. I would think, assuming you are following the zen style fruit seed planting paradigm, they are just different types of fruit. Apple, orange, tomato, whatever. Plant the seed, do the act, get your fruit, and wind up in a certain realm. And this is where I am stuck with now. What is really "objective", and what is just conditioning? "Do onto others as you would have others do unto you". Sounds great, right? I don't steal from people. But there are people who would steal from me. Did I "deserve" that? I am nice to others, but there are people who would take advantage of that niceness. Do I "deserve" that? So I don't steal, but I guard my money. I am nice to people, but cut off the people who would suck me dry with no remorse. And then there is a societal, practical aspect. If we raped and killed whenever we pleased, where would we be? I don't want to get raped and killed. It hurts me. It hurts my ability to build a life in society. It does the same for others. So raping and killing is illegal, and we deal harshly with those who break that law. But how many of us, given the chance to rape and kill, would? Not many people get that chance, so I don't see how most people could answer that honestly, and I don't expect the question to be treated in any other way besides rhetorically. If we were given absolute power for one day, anything, no personal consequences, what would we do? Would we beat the crap out of (kill?) some guy who wronged us? Have sex (either by convincing them to, or forcing them do) with that woman who spurned your advances? Would we hold back because we are afraid that God would judge us? That karma would give us misfortune down the road? Sounds to me like a system of control which helps keep societal order. "Not only will we throw you in jail, but you'll be sent to hell and reincarnated as a toad". So we aren't doing it because it is "right" or "wrong". But we are afraid that there is some entity (corporeal or otherwise), which sees us when we're sleeping, knows when we're awake, and knows if we've been bad or good, which would then see us, so we should just be good, because someone would always know. Deserve is a pretty loaded word. If I poke myself with a sharp knife, I bleed. Do I "deserve" to bleed? If I light my ex-girlfriend's house on fire, does that house "deserve" to burn? It just happens. I haven't seen anything which, to me, would indicate that anyone is "deserving" of anything. I haven't seen anything which, to me, would indicate that there is an objective sense of "right" and "wrong" which is meted out by a deity or impersonal universal record keeping log. I continue to do the "right thing" based, so far as I can tell, on what I was culturally conditioned to do from a very young age. I don't hurt people because I don't like to be hurt. I am aware that there are many consequences (very physical ones) for what would happen to me if I go around hurting people. When I act against this, I feel "bad". But do I feel bad because it is a deep, personal sense of there being an objective "right" and "wrong" that my very being knows is being violated, or is it because I have committed a grave cultural taboo?

Does karma work like good and bad? I always thought it was just kind of neutral. "Plant apples, get apples, don't complain about the oranges". If you rape and kill somebody, you are sewing the seeds of rape and murder. If you rape and murder someone with a husband with a gun, well you are pretty much asking to get shot in the face. If you plan to murder someone at point blank range in a revenge killing in broad daylight, you are sewing the seeds of there being a witness to see you, think you are a horrible person, and possibly report you to the police. I guess it's pretty simple cause and effect when you think about it on scales like that. But then you factor in multiple lives and things like that, stuff gets kind of crazy. Think about all the rapes and murders that are never reported and never solved. The victims never found, the perpetrators never get caught. Sew the seeds of the perfect crime, reap the rewards of never getting caught. Do you get what's coming to you in the next life? I dunno. Maybe we'd like to think that you do? Maybe in another life you lose your smarts and get to play a victim. Maybe your soul has internalized what it means to be the villain, and you never really suffer (beyond the horrible soul wrenching feeling that you felt in your higher self when you committed that crime, but never experienced on a lower, conscious level). I dunno. I'm no expert on karma.

Yes. Seriously. You can believe something honestly. You can also believe in something dishonestly. The act of belief does not have much bearing on its veracity. And its veracity (or ability to be verified at a later date with an increase in technology or awareness) does not have much bearing on the strength of any belief. I can believe in God. God may or may not exist. We may or may not discover God at a later date in an objective, verifiable way. I can believe in gravity even if it does exist. I can believe that gravity is a field. I can believe that gravity is a dent in the fabric of space-time. I can believe that gravity is what we call billions of invisible gremlins that hold us back from reaching the heavens. Those gremlins may decide to quite their job tomorrow. Or we may discover that gravity is caused by my fat uncle. Though the subjects are oft intertwined, they are still separate categories. We may stop believing something once we have found it to be true. We may stop believing something once we have found it to be untrue. We may start/continue believing something once we have found it to be true. We may start/continue believing something once we have found it to be untrue. You can believe honestly. Or you can not.

How so?

There is disinformation everywhere. I think it is far more likely and more common that disinformation comes from people who, themselves, are coming at a topic with only limited knowledge and experience. They think they are doing the world a favor by sharing what they know, but since they are coming at it from such a limited perspective, they are doing more harm than good, but they don't realize it. For these people, it isn't that they know there is a higher truth and they are trying to prevent others from seeking it by planting false information- it's that the information, which is really "false", is, to them, "true", and, in fact, "the" higher truth. At the risk of falling into paranoid schizophrenia, I do think there are people out there who do possess a higher knowledge. Or, perhaps, they don't possess the higher knowledge, but they know of its existence. And, in a strategy to control people for whatever reason, actively engage in a disinformation campaign. Pointing people away from the knowledge, away from themselves, or at least distracting people. These people must reach the information first, and if they can't have the information, then no one will. And then, since this is the internet, there are going to be all kinds of people with issues that they can't work out in the real world, so they come to work them out there. There are people who disguise themselves. People who adopt the names of others. And in general cause a ruckus. But they aren't consciously trying to cause problems or knowingly spread false information. That, I think, is the difference. An agent (of aforementioned disinformation) has agency. The agent knows what they are doing, and are aware of the consequences. People with a misplaced sense of self righteousness or entitlement, though they may be doing the same thing as the disinformation agent, know not what they do. I think a good agent of disinformation would know this, and would know ways of manipulating these people. So coming to TTB's and posting knowingly false info, or going to a political rally and spreading false info may not be on their list. But they WOULD exploit organizations which tend to attract "followers", people who don't think for themselves, and don't want to think for themselves, use that to disseminate their message, then sit back, and let the followers do all the legwork. [edit] And this process is not limited to spirituality or anything like that. It could be business, politics, and who is in charge of bringing snacks to the homeowner's association meetings. For instance, the "higher knowledge" I mentioned earlier might really just be the true figures surrounding global temperature changes, which, if exposed, could influence opinions surrounding a certain popular movement

I love when that happens And like at a restaurant, where everyone is talking, and then, for some reason, there is a lull in everyone's conversation except for one person, who then proceeds to say something really embarrassing so that everybody hears it

Great stuff, Taomeow I don't know much about these two things. What kind of techniques are you talking about/would you recommend? Sounds like you have positive family experiences My family uses each other to get stuff

Same here. I'm really starting to wonder if it is a "true" authority, or just one that's been so deeply embedded for so long that I feel incredibly uncomfortable without it.

I dunno. I have a friend who plays World of Warcraft a lot. He says there's this decently attractive girl in his group (in an emo kind of way), who likes to challenge herself..... so she invites guys over to fuck her as she is playing World of Warcraft. Either she's really good, or the guys are really bad, because my friend says her game performance never goes down I'm sure the dudes are pretty happy- they get sex AND a gamer girl!

I've heard thoughts like this before. You just can't trust anybody! Hmm, I dunno. Human nature is pretty insidious like that. "Oh, yes, thank you for telling me to rebel, you showed me not to just follow people blindly. Now please, oh rebellious leader, tell me what I should rebel against next!" It's hard to be truly rebellious and free thinking. I think a significant portion of those who say they are, aren't. They've just supplanted one overt authority for a subversive authority. They tell themselves they are making their own decisions, but they are not. And that is far, FAR more dangerous, IMHO.

Please do continue, this is awesome stuff!

There's something to be said for community and group. I have more than a few friends who are part of Christian groups/social circles, Buddhist groups, or Hindu groups. I personally consider cultivation to be more of an individual pursuit, so I never really seek out those groups. Sometimes it does get lonely. You think about having a group, a default social circle with a group of friends that you already know have something in common with you. I just shrugged those thoughts off, and don't really feel lonely anymore. But I could see how someone might be spurred to start a group. And to help draw people, make it similar to what they already know. That way they can still be "rebellious", but not do something so radical that it might make them uncomfortable. At least, that's the impression I get from a few groups. Yes, it's interesting, sad, funny, and maybe a bit depressing when you start researching so many things that were co-opted, or re-imaged by the Church (either adopted into its own ceremonies and "mythos", or demonized). And the depressing thing is that people take those stories wholesale, as part of the unquestioned tenets of the faith, and when you look around at the "pagan" groups of the past.... well, they are disturbingly similar. But ultra orthodox people rarely ever even take that look. But I think sometimes it might have to do with being part of the group. People like to be told what to do. It makes it easier for them. Do what you're told, pay your dues, and you have friends and a support network for life. So I don't really blame people for going into it. Yeah, stuff like that is definitely worth considering. I heard one interpretation that was something along the lines of anything that could push you off the path towards God was "the adversary" or "the enemy". Excessive alcohol consumption, which could lead you to do bad things, would be one such "adversary" of your faith. But then somewhere along the lines it got personified, picks up baggage, "the devil made me do it", blah blah blah. Definitely much to think about. I've always been a fan of English/Literature classes, where critical looks are taken at texts, the linguistic evolution of words, their original meanings, contemporary understanding of words or texts, and things like that. Religious studies scholars also do that, but I also think there are a lot of scholars coming into it with their own agenda- so a Christian scholar will magnify or diminish certain facts which would help them spin it one way. Not saying it's all bad, I'm just saying that everyone should be careful and critical. Unfortunately, criticism is all too often seen as heresy.

Sounds pretty awesome I think it's clear to everyone that video evidence alone is not going to be the final arbiter of any of these skills for any masters. Video would be taken as a means of record keeping, and also later analysis. But there would also be plenty of on scene people, researchers who could examine the body before, possibly during, depending on the equipment, and after. I mean, basically, full study, peer review, repeat it, etc etc. None of this post a video to youtube stuff. Because then it's just a back and forth of "that hit looked fake, he took the fall", "no way man, you don't know what you're talking about, that master hit me once, and it hurt like hell", "that's because you've never had a day of real MA training in your life", "no way dude, before I met this master, I was a black belt in Brazilian jujutsu and aikido and karate and savate and I was doing the amateur MMA circuit, this guy is for real, you're a keyboard warrior".

"Better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven" was uttered by Satan in John Milton's "Paradise Lost". Julius Caesar is attributed with a similar phrase (well Caesar came first), that being "I'd rather be the first man in a barbarian village than be the second man in Rome". So, yeah, common strain. No, I never watched the video [edit] Okay, watched the bit you were referring to- Yeah, I was brought up Catholic, and I always wondered at the Satanists, because they were worshiping an entity who fundamentally hated them. Anyway, reading through some Satanist stuff later on, it seemed that there are quite a few groups who aren't so much about "worshiping satan", but more about the "question God, question authority, think for yourself, rugged individualism" type thing, which I do think is admirable. I've got my own issues with some Christian concepts. For instance, God gave humans free will, because if they didn't CHOOSE to worship God, then the worship would be meaningless. After all, he made the angels so that they HAD to obey him, and he figured it'd be better to design something that could decide... oh, but wait, lucifer and a bunch of other angels sure did go against the programming, huh? But I digress..... So God makes humans so they have free will, but then punishes them for exercising aforementioned free will if they choose the wrong way to live life? Huh. Doesn't seem like much of a choice. "Hey, worship me or don't. Your choice. I don't care. Buuuuuuut if you don't..... you're going to go to a pit of fire and torment for all eternity. But yeah, no, go ahead, live life how you want, it'd mean nothing if I made you worship me." Not cool, IMHO. So, yeah, I guess I'm right up there with lucifer (down there with satan?) when it comes to saying "hey, God, what's the deal?" Though I don't think lucifer/satan appreciates me associating myself with him. But what do I care? He hates me anyway...... On that note, I read somewhere that Voltaire, while on his deathbed, was visited by a priest there to conduct last rites. When the priest asked if Voltaire would renounce satan and all of his evils, Voltaire reportedly replied- "Now now, this is hardly the time to be making enemies". +1 for covering all the bases

Yes we can. Get a master, get a volunteer "attacker". Master issues their force. Video clearly captures the volunteer reeling, vomiting, coughing up blood, being paralyzed until the master hits the proper pressure points, flies away, or whatever else their issuance of force entails. We ask the master and the volunteer if they want to continue. They both say okay. The "attacker" is told to be more aggressive, will do their best to fight the effects of the master. Video clearly shows the master wiping the floor with this volunteer. Let's assume that both wish to continue. Volunteer and master both agree to the attacker going "all out" (the master, out of kindness and to avoid lawsuits, even though all parties involved really should sign some kind of a waiver, holds back on his instant death skills). So the attacker is going to try and knock this master's head off. Video clearly shows the master wiping the floor with this volunteer in all manner of ways. Rinse and repeat. A detailed examination by skilled physician(s) can appraise the state of the body before (during?) and after the demonstration. So if the volunteer subjectively experienced blurred or warped vision, loss of balance, sickness, or pain in any part of the body, we can see if there is corresponding bodily evidence that such events happened- concussion, fractures, organ bruising, etc etc etc. Breakdown of the video evidence can reveal how a master can make subtle shifts in their own posture, or, perhaps more reliably, how an "amateur" has their balance and their body's structural integrity breaks down when put under pressure by a master. So, again, we can't make a video about how someone feels when they are being set upon by a master. But we CAN make a video which shows the effects of such techniques. And, based on the ease with which the master may implement a technique, compared with how much damage it could inflict, we may extrapolate that to how useful it may be in any number of different encounters. And I don't think there is any shortage of amateur MMAists who would laugh off any threats of "fa jin" damage in the face of their superior external training, and who, I'm sure, would love to help banish martial myths.

You can show a perfectly healthy young person reeling from what appears to be a non-serious blow from a much older person. You can show someone's feet flying out from under them in a round of push hands, and can see (even if you have to go frame by frame) the breakdown of their structure and loss of balance. So no, we can't show a video clip that tells us whether someone is having a subjective experience of them losing their sense of up or down, or the feeling of having their feet sliding on ice or watermelon. But we CAN make a video which shows what is happening to their body as a result of that. And, depending on how far said master is willing to go in the demonstration, and how much punishment the young person is willing to take, we may be able to extrapolate that out to how a fight would go between them.

Why add extra words to something that was already laid out perfectly? My interest has always been, first and foremost, on imminently practical things. I find the subjects of other universes, philosophy, morals, religion, thought experiments, and the like to be incredibly fascinating. But I'm finishing up my last year at university (provided I'm not suddenly stirred to continue my education), facing a royally screwed up economy, and pickings are slim enough as it is thanks to my poor life choices regarding a field of education (something I like, rather than something that the market demands). So things like this: Sounds incredibly enticing to someone in my position! Imagine if I could pull out the knowledge of an alternate "me", the "me" who is a master of medicine, or computers, or chemistry, and manifest it in the timeline that I am in now? Well then I could make it rich fast, get my affairs in order to ensure that I won't be disturbed, and then retire to my hermit lifestyle (with round the clock access to TTB's, of course ) to ponder life and other universes without a care in the world. Unfortunately, I do not presently possess the knowledge of how to do that. Imagine if I could bring in the knowledge from an alternate timeline "me" who DID know If you know, Taomeow, please let me know, I'd love to hear it! I'm up for scary and rabbit hole trips. Maybe I don't know what I'm asking for. Maybe I'm lulled into a false sense of security, and that I know not what I wish for out of "boredom" with the "present". I like to think that my capacity to handle scary things has gone up. I've had a few scary experiences here and there. Maybe as they increase in scariness I am training myself for the "big one", the finale rabbit hole plunge. Maybe nothing will happen until I go through a few more requisite scary experiences. As of now in this timeline, I dunno

Damn.

So Taomeow, if we take something as described in these videos to be true: You're trying to get into different dimensions through dreams? And since the dimensions you are trying to get into are so radically removed from our dimension, and may have different laws concerning everything from basic particle physics to toilet operations, you have to relearn everything? Which would then make recalling details from these dreams harder, because you don't have any reference point in this dimension that you are "waking up to" in the morning? Do I have all that right? Because if so, sounds awesome