Josh Young

If you don't mind please explain how this qualifies someone as agnostic? I do not understand your conclusion.

There is something to it. That is what I think. However people with the skill are not common. Also the results are never 100%, but they are still impressive in many cases. Some shamans insist that the Nazca lines were used to train such a thing, they would take students to the area and have them go through some things and then draw the symbols they saw, if they saw the Nazca symbols they would be trained for remote view type things, if not they would be trained as healers. This is still done in Peru by some shamanic groups. Needless to say that this explanation of the purpose of the Nazca lines is not well known or widely believed,

I do not view researchers as scholars. Nor do I view paying the opinions of scholars no mind to be same as ignoring data. I pursue scholarly pursuits myself, to pay no mind to the opinions does not mean that one cannot learn, but rather one does not become burdened with the preconceptions that can only and inevitably change over time, thus to pay no mind is to realize that the conclusions of scholars are relative and subject to change. so then to answer the question: as you can seen from my own opinion above, paying no mind to scholars has nothing to do with the progression of knowledge. The scholastic evolution of knowledge strikes me as a different and complex topic that I cannot succinctly address. My own so called higher education consists primarily of Biology, Philosophy and History and I am somewhat familiar with the philosophy of science, which is a field utterly separate from science. The latter part of your question relates to this and I have no desire to take the conversation in that direction. ---- Cultivation is development. No more, no less. It has many forms but it requires intent and effort. There is Tao-ism, but it is not the same as Tao. Just based on it, after a manner. I view the Tao as without origin, but the realization of Tao, such as is found implied by the Taodejing, is older than China as we know it. The eight fold path symbol relates to the bagua. Vedic astrology and the tradition of the seven stars/even sages appear to have heavily influenced China, however these elements do not appear to originate in India, though many scholars are of the opinion they do, and while they can be identified in Egypt, they are not of Egyptian origin. I cannot claim to know where they came from, but they are very old. This reminds me of the topic of where "white" people came from. It has been indicated recently (genetics) that they all share a single common ancestor at one point. If you look at the genetic evidences then the indication of time frames is rather far from what is commonly accepted by scholars. What I mean is that according to genetic data China was populated about 50-60K years ago! But data like this tend to be ignored by scholars because it does not fit into what they accept. Many people are like this, it is human nature to reject that which does not fit into your ontology. This aspect of humanity plays a major role in science and knowledge in general. What we "know" to be "true" is only opinion after all.

Neat question. The placebo effect is very interesting. It is not only healing, but can damage. It can intoxicate or strengthen or weaken. I believe it has to do with the power of suggestion and the role of mind. It surely must involved chi at some point, because chi is energy and mind is Yi and where the yi goes the chi will follow. But it does not seem to be a function of chi per say.

I believe that the ark went to Ethiopia. The bible does not mention this. I do not believe in the bible nor in Christianism. The Torah is very interesting though.

Let us though give due analysis to what is agreed upon by modern scholars and masters of Taoism Consensus is not fact. Scholars opinions change with each generation. I do not say that Taoism has roots in Veda or Egypt. This would be inaccurate. Tao is not a religion at all, there are religions based upon it, but they are not Tao. There is a genetic bottleneck in our history, we all descend from a very small group of people. When this occurred there was a cultural bottleneck, from this all people and cultures came to be, through divergence and regional development. No culture appeared or just came to be, neither did people in this sense. If you go far enough back and examine the symbols you will note that religions converge and their symbols become less and less distinct. This becomes obscured by time and the development of language, thus different cultures have different words for the same things. Over time as these things develop it appears that they are culturally endemic, and indeed the forms they take are, however that is not their origin. If we take a concept and share it with another culture, then the terms must change to be able to do so. If that concept is preserved for thousands of years in both cultures, then it will seem as if the concepts are endemic and not related, indeed even the terms will change over time in the individual cultures, there will end up being different symbols and rituals and forms for the concepts, it will come to appear that they are unrelated and people who maintain the concepts will argue over who is right and where things came from. People have an incremental view, it is based on limitations of region and culture and borders. Often the views are ethnocentric, even racist in tone, people want to reinforce the borders, boundaries and limitations. They think that for two different forms to both be right entails reconciling them and that such is syncretism. If we look at abramic religions we can see examples of this type of thing occurring. If you go back far enough with abramic religion though, you even run into Buddhist and vedic symbols and find the concepts are not different than those of Tao. The consensus of scholars also ignores any evidence that does not fit into their paradigm. This is so common in archaeology that it isn't funny. The consensus of scholars on heavier than air flight was once that it was mathematically impossible, when numerous witnesses wrote to newspapers about seeing the Wright Brothers flights the newspapers responded by stating that they were all frauds because the experts knew that heavier than air flight was mathematically impossible. Scientific American refused to publish about the flights. The Wrights were called frauds and liars by the scholars and experts on the subject of flight. When Barbara McClintock found evidence of jumping genes she was ridiculed because the so called experts knew she had to be wrong. Eventually others found out she was right and she received the Nobel prize for the work that the scholars "knew" was wrong. She was awarded the prize in 1983, more than 30 years after her discoveries. Consensus is merely opinion, not truth. Scholars are often wrong, pay them no mind.

Start by telling us what you know. That knowledge is an illusion, it is only belief put into stronger terms. This illusion is all there is. We think we know, but we do not. This even applies to colors, we think we know colors, but we do not, we only experience them. Experience is not knowledge. Then tell us what you don't know. everything/nothing Only after all that, tell us what you think. I don't, actually. What am I to think? What I am does not think, what is thinking is not me. But this is the same as my answer to the first part, because it has to do with what "I" know. And "I" know that "I" know no thing.

Hundun, are you familiar with sigils and Psychick Youth?

I'd be unhappy were I he. After all, he lost the Ark. Or at least, this is what I believe.

My Tao is more un-nameable than your Tao. Just kidding. I find that people don't flaunt knowledge so much as the time they have put into something. It is funny that way, people tend to be more concerned with how many years they can claim they have been doing things than they are with knowledge and understanding. It is like the so called higher education system. People don't care about what they learned so much as they care about the diploma. In general they have no passion for learning, they just want the piece of paper and they jump through the hoops to get it. So instead of sharing knowledge they just share that they have a degree and people pretend that makes them smart or educated. Much of the time people who learn for the sake of learning, who have no degree, know much more about specific fields of study than people with doctorates in the same field. It is a shame.

Natives did not smoke ciggarettes. They did not smoke Nicotiana tabacuum either, they smoked Nicotiana rustica, a different species. They did not smoke every day, more like on special occasions and at times when it was needed for the effects they wanted. While some asiatic cultures inhaled cannabis fumes put onto burners, most ate the plant. Smoking cannabis is less than 500 years old, as is the same with tobacco. In fact smoking was virtually unknown in the old world before Columbus. Still a lot of incense use undoubtedly resulted in inhaled fumes in the old world, though there are no pipes that archaeology has found. This is even true for opium use, which like hashish was classically eaten. However people were smoking for over 5000 years in the Americas The same can be said for snuffing. Several studies have shown that nicotine itself can cause cancer. However it is true that polonium isotopes play a role in tobacco related cancer rates due to the alpha emitter qualities of these isotopes. Moreover now that we are in the nuclear age we have radioactive dusts all over the planet. There is no spot in the US that does not have fallout from atomic weapons tests, the cancer rates of the US relate closely to this and the automotive industry including petrol consumption and freeways. The modern hybrid of tobacco is not the same as the species widely used by natives. The real deal species is N rustica and it is actually much stronger than most commercial tobacco. The effects of it are rather neat and tobacco plays a major role in Andean Shamanism involving, vilca/yopo snuffs, ayahuasca and San Pedro. Most people who use ceremonial tobacco as N rustica is known tend to grow their own, if someone is interested in this I have some seeds of the Kessu strain that is the most northern growing strain, it is said to have been grown within 400 miles of the arctic circle. I grew some last year, but only saved seeds and did not use the plant. Nicotine can be absorbed through the skin though, since sacred tobacco is strong (2+% alkaloid) you must be careful or you can die handling it foolishly. Cancer is complicated and there are dozens of forms. Some are highly preventable, some are not. Most active smokers I know are hikers and exercise quite a bit, they tend to be healthy. Some of my friends smoke more than they exercise and they tend to be unhealthy. Botanical psychopharmacology is one of my specific areas of study. Particularly new world species. I smoked fairly consistently for over a decade but quit about a year ago. I love the effects of tobacco, but I loathe cigarettes.

I'd like to meet Christ.

If you don't know what it means, then how can you know that you are not enlightened? Just curious.

From what? It is my belief that we are all enlightened beings. I believe you are right, that we are not waiting for that "aha" moment. It is not a matter of realizing what you do not know, it is a matter of realizing what you have always known. Why do you write as if you do not?

There is no such thing as knowledge. No book can be known. Experience can be had for many things, like herbs, but not for knowledge. I took an oath to share Tao, among other things. I have never shared a quote of a book without explaining it. We only have our own perspectives, right or wrong, good or bad. I hope every member shares what they know and does not fear to do so. What shocks me is when people think they aren't enlightened.

Its like a dog chasing its tail One of my favorite sights!

I am merely sorry that words cannot share these types of understandings. Even if we formulate the words as correct symbols, they cannot replace what they symbolize. My sorrow is not abiding though, merely an afterthought in relation to this topic. I have often thought that if I was anything in a previous life it must have been a tree, and indeed if I have another incarnation after death then I would prefer to be a tree. However to be anything, even to be here, now, is indeed blissful. I was connecting to that feeling as I went for a walk today, I'll admit that I am not able to dwell in it 24/7, but I remember each time it came to me, as well as the first time. I was on the bus writing about what I am. I realized I am not my thoughts, my possessions, my body, my actions, my desires or any term. Before I knew what was happening I had tears of joy! it was like I was floating in space and waves of euphoria from within bathed me in the feeling, but I was still on the bus and when I came to my stop I still had to get off the bus and walk home. Nothing was lost and nothing was gained, but I found "myself" hiding beneath my preconceptions. I can feel it now as I type, and I am indeed sorry I cannot give this feeling to anyone like a glass of water.

All of the concept/understandings of Tao can be found in Vedic works. These concepts appear to hail from Egypt before India, before that their origin is obscure. However Tao"ism" is Chinese in development.

How please, may the difference between symbolic and actual be known?

Do you still have this cake that you are eating? What I mean is understanding the explanation is not the same as the experience. I apologize for the result this topic has because of this. Sorry.

I cannot claim to be "highly realized" but I believe that the following is true: This state is ever present for all, but it is like a sound you cannot hear when you try to listen. The subtlety of existence escapes notice when mind cannot get past the limits of self. One cannot obtain what one has, one cannot become what one is. This is why it is called Consummation of Incomparable Enlightenment. No word there is trivial. Incomparable in particular, for that is all ego is in a way, a comparison. We know there is no line between what we are and the universe, and yet we compare ourselves to the universe unending. This comparison is a distraction from what we are and it is sourced in self. This has been my experience, so it is my belief. I do not claim to know my experiences. Allow me to offer but a little more of my belief/experience: the nature of mind is limitless, but the nature of self is itself a limitation. Thus in self is the limitless focused upon the limited. To release this focus results in experiencing the limitless nature of mind, which is (a) non-thing. It is not nothing though, that (nothing) is as limited as anything. So it (nature of mind) is neither a lack of something nor the presence of something. This is why the Vipassana essentials of impermanence, suffering, and not-self are the same and they relate to change being unendingly inherent in all. But to explain this does not help because explanation is only something to focus on and thus it can only limit, even when it is true. So I must apologize for offering explanation. Sorry.

Because underneath the distraction we are all enlightened beings.

When I was a boy I had dreams of men wearing white robes teaching me. One of them was a black man. This was odd because where I grew up I only saw black people on TV. If I am not mistaken he told me his name and that he was Noah of the bible, but that was not his name. I was 7 or 8. This dream was but one in a series of lesson dreams where in the dream spirits came to me, that were dead, and taught me to prepare me for life. They told me I would forget most of what they taught until the time was right. Once I had a dream when I was 11 or so, a man appeared in the dream and told me his name, I looked it up later and found out he was a dead man. He told me things about my life which later came true. I had never heard of the man before that i can remember, which is interesting. I still have no idea what to think about these dreams. Given my childhood they could have easily been related to my environment. However I do not know where elements like names would have come from. I can only speak for myself and say that I do not know the answer and I accept that. If they were teaching me, why when I was so young? Why not later in life? Why with lessons i could not recall? Why would a dead man contact me to teach me? A close friend of mine has received martial arts (bagua) corrections in a dream as well. I once dreamed (4 years ago or so) that I was challenged by a guard of a woman in a dream and having fought me for some time he stopped suddenly and awarded me a sacred staff like object which he was the keeper of. One thing is for sure, I awoke with a sense of purpose. Whatever the case, do not forsake or ignore your dreams. They have a meaning, where that meaning comes from does not matter so much as the meaning itself. Besides, who wants to hear that Noah was Black with blue/grey eyes and that his name was roughly phonetically translated as: Emanuel? It certainly wasn't anything I was ever taught in waking life.

Where does the recognition of terms start and stop? Is not "other" a term? What about "worlds"? Or "realities" You say "people" "have" "access" to "other" "realities" But all of these are terms, no more and no less. "Enlightenment" you say is a "state" and that "evolution" is involved. Why denounce or kick or scream? Please tell me, what it a "term" and what is it used for? These concepts, that people have access to higher realities, this is something you have faith in, not knowledge. Do you presume that I have not experienced "other" "realities"? How much we believe we know, and how little we all do. Myself being no exception. The holier than thou game is what organized religions are all about. I believe that the examples speak for themselves.

I disagree there, it being my belief that we have money as a way to ensure that the working class depends upon the upper class whom they serve via exploitation. It is the paper that the contract for the human soul is printed upon. It is not the value of labor that determines compensation, rather the idea with money is to compensate labor as little as possible, ergo the fruits of labor are enjoyed by those commanding the laborers, while the workers are paid as little as possible to ensure their continued labor. It is economic aristocracy and the basis of modern caste and class division. Also the idea that "everyone" does it... if everyone has a bad idea it is still a bad idea. Consensus is irrelevant to reality. Seadog, your post above is my favorite post I have read online so far in my life.