Apech

Hi, I think I concur with those who suggest physical exercise - but not exclusively - and some of the meditations you mention in previous posts like an 'imagined point of nothingness' - don't seem like a good idea. Why would you imagine nothingness? But on the other hand I wouldn't give up on your internal practice because feeling blockages - no matter the degree of discomfort - is part of progress. I'm not sure it is necessarily related to twisted bones and wotnot either since everyone has these effects and probably most people don't have twisted bones. There are different stages to dealing with blockages - and I would say they are key learning points. I could broadly groups these into three stages: 1) purify - that is expel the block and its toxins by applying energy to it, washing it out etc. 2) transform - that is allowing the energy of the block to change - because everything (including the block) is energy and can transform 3) non-dual ... there is no block ('advanced') So I wouldn't give up at all. In fact I'd say to yourself that experiencing blocks is not contrary to practice it is practice. Look with interest at the block, examine its nature, work with it - you'll probably learn something interesting about it and yourself.

Those elitist Macs didn't invite the Windows family. Snobs.

'Next year in Baghdad' ????

I don't want to blunder into other people's system - as this is not my main thing - but my understanding is that the MCO proper occurs spontaneously once the 'pill' or 'medicine' has been generated in the LDT. Up till then the practice is part of laying the foundations - such as guarding the three treasures, clearing blockages, passing the difficult gates and so on. So if you think you are 'doing' the MCO then you are not - and any kind of forced attempt to make it happen may well be harmful.

Cool guitar, brilliant drummer - but for some reason I'm focussing on the bass player

My current state on UK politics summed up exactly:

Sheep farming produced this: which most people think of as natural.

Maybe you could post in the Healing Circle section with some details on the side-effects and someone may be able to offer some kind of diagnosis and cure. Though if they are severe and physical you should go to a doctor for a check up first before doing anything else.

Thanks for the links - I don't speak Korean(?) so I am none the wiser. I think there's two things to say about 'side effects' such as you describe. We don't ordinarily operate as free beings - we bring into the world a lot of 'baggage' - you could say karmic influences and what's more we create a lot more for ourselves when we are in ignorance. So we all meet obstructions in practice - if some one says they don't then they are not really practicing. Though some have an easier ride than others. If you meditate or do some kind of energy practice at some stage you will stir up some latent problems and things will seem to get worse even if they are getting better. Obviously you would prefer not to feel uncomfortable and so on and so you will look for ways to get rid of these feelings. Which is normal and understandable - and most systems include some kind purification practice to cleanse you subtle body. So it is perfectly possible that your teacher is right and you should just persist no matter how painful it is. On the other hand there are practices which are not so helpful - usually in my experience those which offer quick fix or extra powerful routes to whatever the goal is defined to be. You can harm yourself by doing these kind of things. I feel you need to use your own judgement as to whether the meditation you have been taught is contributing to your state of being.

Hi and welcome, I don't know anything about Seokmum Breathing so I can't comment on that. Also you don't say what your health condition is, maybe you don't want to - so that's fine. Maybe, I don't know, you need to do something more physical? Generally I would say qi-gong does have positive health benefits - provided its practiced properly of course. But also I would say that its not like taking pills - there's no prescribed technique which will work without sensitivity and understanding. I'm sure if you post in General or Healing Circle you'll get some useful answers. Good luck. A.

I wasn't thinking of it in that way - more to paraphrase LT - without order there is no chaos and visa versa. The Egyptians had two types of chaos. The first called 'heh' also meant infinity and was represented by tadpoles or frogs and water snakes. It meant something like profusion - picture a pond full of tadpoles a kind of maze of life unrestrained. The other type of chaos was Set (Sutekh) who was among other things a god of storms and desert - maybe a sand storm - a destructive force which even then had the plus side of being destructive of old orders.

Order vs chaos?

still-illuminate iridescent opaline, glows with self knowing.

I hope I didn't perpetrate some ikky stuff!

Well precisely - to you they have nothing to do with morality - but those who imposed those laws thought they were being moral (based presumably on the Bible). In other words they had a code which they enforced - which is more or less what is meant by morality. Ethics is something slightly different being your own values put into practice. My point is that what is generally held to be moral changes over time and according to the conventions of the age in which those that upheld them lived. I never thought I'd get so much shit over such a simple point If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ nor no man ever loved.

What I was trying to respond to was the idea that masters should comply with 'conventional morality'. My point being that not so long ago if you were gay you were offered either jail or chemical castration (Alan Turing) and that complied completely with the morality of the day enshrined in law. Also there was no such thing as rape in marriage - so current consent principles did not apply. Therefore logically whatever the conventional framework of the day is, it is limited and some time in the future people will look back and say that wasn't enough. I did not argue against consent I simply said there may be higher principles such as ahimsa or love.

How do you manage to wait for a whole 15 mins?????????

Me and my big mouth (and keyboard ). I agree with consent generally by the way - I was just pointing out as a general moral guide (like all general moral guides) it may have problems. Say for instance you were in a relationship with someone who liked to self harm. You might decide that for their own good you should work to prevent this - even though the person had not given their consent for you to do so. This might involve restraining them against their will. This might be a loving thing to do but outside consent as a principle. But to them some kind of self harm might be a sexual expression which they feel they need. This is one example of which there may be many. My wider point is that morality is a kind of maze or minefield where simple rules only work as a rule of thumb but may break down in extremis.

Did I suggest those things are ok? No. Children cannot consent because they are not developed to a stage to do this. This has nothing to do with being gay - it is clearly perverted in my view. Love and compassion for the other being truly expressed would make this kind of predation impossible.

I get what you are saying but I don't think it is 'conventional morality' as this changes over time and culture. Remember not so long ago being gay was considered a perversion and also a crime. Now everything is framed around consent - but even that has its problems. I think it is more about intent and motivation - are you acting for the benefit of yourself and others or are you just being lusty/greedy.

His replies seem very tangential. A rant about Sam Harris when the only relevance is that he quotes the same experiments to deny free will. I also watched the Freemason thing - mostly because of the salacious screen cap and yes, it turned out to be not about Freemasons at all. I wonder if he watches the vids he posts before posting. I go back to my previous point - or question - energy interactions can happen spontaneously (presumably including orgasms) the question of ethics comes into effect in terms of one's response to this.

I found this garbled and inconclusive. It seems to me they are confusing consciousness and the mechanistic effects of consciousness - because they have no model which includes consciousness itself. The same is true of the motor effect/free will experiments which Sam Harris and others quote. I can see that quantum effects/entanglement and so on go some way but they are still treating this on the level of an objective mechanism which cannot be free will since it is not free and has no will. In any case how does this explain O at a D????

Thanks. I'm wondering about if it is just spontaneous rather than consensual. What are the ethics then? I guess its got to be about how you respond once you realise its happening. There's a fine line, perhaps between being very aware of interactions in the field and being creepy. Just thinking out loud. PS. I agree about the Kurds but I don't see any other way out