Apech

Ah sorry I missed your point. Its interesting that you say being on the low end makes the US prosperous ... while I think the original idea of welfare in the UK anyway was to educate, house, keep healthy and so on the workers -which would make them more productive and thus create more wealth - if this ever happened I don't know - but I know the early examples of this kind of thing in the 19th Century were exactly this - philanthropic mill owners and so on. At the end of the day its hard to imagine how someone being chronically sick and unable to work benefits anyone at all. I still find it staggering that there is no form of universal health care in the US - I can't see who is gaining from that.

All vajrayana Buddhists work with dharmapalas and dakinis. Not sure why this is an issue.

Technically state ownership of the means of production is Socialism - while Canada, Norway and Sweden are capitalist countries with social democratic governments which is basically tax and redistribute through public services. All western democracies are capitalist with social programmes - all that varies is the balance - with the US being on the low end of the scale with respect to social programmes like healthcare.

In the US maybe but not everywhere.

Anarcho-communism was a significant movement in the Spanish Civil war period - many of them fought against Franco's fascists but in the end were screwed by their own 'comrades' from the soviet communist side.

Chang! I was waiting for you to show up. Actually I've got a very open mind. I follow (as in watch not adhere to) everyone from Ben Shapiro to Novara media and I get something from all of them. My main value as a cultivator (an ageing one at that) is to left alone to do/believe/practise what I want without interference. But I recognise outside of that, that society has its own evolution which is expressed by politics. The course of this evolution is like a great river fed by many streams and impacted by major forces which despite the posturing of politicians are outside their control. I mean things like the Industrial Revolution or even the 2008 financial crisis - which are like resets to society which need response and adjustment. In fact I would say that 2008 and the response of austerity/using public money for bank liquidity determines our current politics. You can't blame people voting Trump when they have been screwed through the Obama years. I think the things that will determine our future politics are IT, AI and climate change (man made or no) - these forces will revolutionise how we work and live. What we need to do is think of ways to live in harmony with these larger forces while preserving our welfare and freedom.

I hope we share some things. Perhaps I was being a little harsh but most of the people I see who call themselves anarchist and/or communists are Antifa types who when you pull off the black balaclava turn out to be spotty students who live with their parents. They are LARPing basically and to no good end.

Part of the process which leads to looking deeper is expressing your opinions and being challenged. (imo)

Woah. Where are we going with this? I always thought this place was more or less free speech - except in extremis i.e. racism, misogyny etc and particularly ad homimen attacks. Open conversation is the way to learn new ideas and opinions and to strengthen and test your own. If you want me to sign up to anarcho-communism which is basically the wet dream of over privileged middle class kids - count me out. I want genuine change to the left which gives people dignity, a decent standard of living, healthcare and otherwise lets them do what they want. I want new models of living which emerge from today not some nineteenth century failed rhetoric. I want maximum free speech on Daobums with some outside limiters to prevent descent into flame wars and so on.

Chapter 161 BoD quoted above: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/museums-static/digitalegypt/literature/religious/bd161.html Formula for cutting an opening in the sky done by Thoth over Wennefer, when he was opening into the sun-disk Ra lives, the turtle dies! the body is pure in the earth, the bones are pure of Osiris N. Ra lives, the turtle dies! the one in the chest is well, the one in the chest is Osiris N. Ra lives, the turtle dies! suffocated by the flesh of Qebehsenuf for their keeper Osiris N. Ra lives, the turtle dies! their passing surpasses the foundation. This is about opening the sky for the sun to rise - not supporting the sky. Also I can't think of any reference in Ch. 17 of Thoth coming from the West over a body of water. The sky in Egyptian mythology is supported by Shu (and the pillars of Shu). Every book I read which quotes Egyptian texts in support of some theory - especially Hancock and Sweatman get the Egyptian stuff all wrong. Its very depressing. But what they do is quote mine - given there is so much material to choose from they can usually find something that sounds like it supports their theory.

Terms from Samkhya - or to put it another way Sanskrit terms - but then the use of terms evolve over time as they are applied I would say - for instance is citta in the Yoga-sutra exactly the same as the Samkhya version?

As CT points out that's a yoga/Hindu idea - Chit as a pure consciousness, which doesn't appear in Buddhist philosophy - I was referring to the actual mechanism of knowing (or in my own way trying to) based loosely on Yogacara.

Hi, And welcome. Plenty of threads about Dzogchen on here if you look around.

All the words in English relating to 'recognise', 'know' and so on are related to a single PIE root *gno: https://www.etymonline.com/word/*gno-?ref=etymonline_crossreference which is why they have 'gn' or 'kn' in them. When you know something you recognise it - which because of the 're' prefix means you are re-knowing it - that is relating immediate sense perception to stored experience. Our minds (consciousness/citta) have this quality of perceiving and storing impressions. This activity gives rise to name and form (namo/rupa) which means essentially we have ascribed a category (family) to a thing based on what it is born from - what is its mother. If it is born from a dog it is a dog and if it is born from a cat it is a cat. This is all to do with a related PIE root *gene, which means to give birth to. https://www.etymonline.com/word/*gene- If we think of the phrase 'kith and kin' we can see how these word groups hang together to form the basis for knowing.

Yes absolutely. Even at a basic level there are blocks arising through egoic striving. At a higher level I would say that the bigger your aspiration then the more expansive your realisation. Of course this can't be fabricated - which is why the highest regard is held for those who arouse bodhicitta in you - it is quite rare and precious.

One of the things that happened when Buddhism came to the west was this idea that Bodhisattvas somehow forgo enlightenment for the sake of others. Its a misunderstanding. A Bodhisattva is a being on the path - essentially on the Bhumis towards Buddhhood. The optimum way of helping people is to become a Buddha - so turning back from that would not help people more. But there is an idea in there which is a bit like being a life guard faced with a tsunami - who is willing to dive in the help others rather than save themselves - even though the tsunami in this case = samsara is 'illusory'* * meaning not substantially real in itself but a projection of Buddha nature (etc.)

Something to ponder:

Well! So kind of you to speak for me, Chang. My views haven't changed at all, not even slightly. I don't put labels on myself but I think most people would put me on the left, I vote Labour in the UK. I am definitely socially liberal and ... well what exactly do you mean between multi-ethnic and multi-racial isn't that the same thing??? Anyway I'm happy with that also - no problem at all. Nice to see you posting again, Sean.

it made me laugh.

I found an old pic of Ursula from better days:

One day maybe

Now the UK is run by a dizzy blonde.

It takes a long time to paddle across the Atlantic.

I read Hancock's 'America Before' which was quite a good read. It is part ancient history, part travelogue, part rather wild theorising. What is clear is that there are anomalies in the current understanding to history of the Americas/ human history in general which need to be explained. And when they are explained the standard model of human history will probably need a major reevaluation. Things that seem clear to me at any rate so far from reading what is available: 1. Human (and def. hominid) history is a lot older than previously thought. 2. Ancient humans far from being ignorant savages were capable of sophisticated thought, trade, stone working and some form of social organisation. 3. More advanced stone working techniques seem to be universal at earlier times - followed by decline into historical period. 4. The similarities of the stone working across the world may suggest very early sea-going maritime culture. 5. The evidence for a Younger Dryas catastrophe (comet impact) seems to be growing and becoming more certain. 6. There are a number of anomalies in human history which need to be explained - e.g. Australasian DNA in Amazon tribes. 7. American history seems particularly obscured - possibly as result of catastrophic devastation. As per Atlantis as an 'advanced' civilisation - apart from tubular drills, circular saws and some kind of liquid polishing techniques in ancient stones, where is the evidence for advanced technology?