-O-

Is this deference and redirection? Mind enlightening me?

Canada banks faired well through this specifically because of regulation.

Dude, do a little business... then do a little more for a large corporation then you'll see what I'm talking about. If the large corporation can save us all a little money by reducing the cost of production then ask yourself this.... when they move that production overseas to lower the cost to you... where are the jobs, where does the money go - think in terms of number of transactions (not dollar vlaue). So sure you save per unit cost and great quality products for really low prices and in the mean time the manufacturing base of your coutry dissappears, the value of your natural resources drops tremendously... The human resources of your working class changes from skilled labour to unskilled labour and retail work... you kick the foundation of your economy out from under yourself. So now you can sell more stuff to people with less money i.e. Walmart - who the smaller and micro businesses can not compete with... and these businesses account for 80% of the jobs and 80% of the transaction which occur with in your economy... etc etc etc. Let me expand this a little more.... Say I have a machine shop in the outskirts of Toronto and I can fill your order of 50,000 COGS each quarter for $2m a year... but you can get the same COGS from indonesia for $1.5M(shipping included :-). You buy from Indonesia... now there is $2m less money in the market you sell to, to buy food, gas, beer, popcorn whatever.... that 1.5M is now being spent in markets you don't sell to... Time goes on and the machine shop has to downsize... the journeyman machinist now, not out of work (or poor or in a ghetto somewhere) is now working custodial services at a local school - less money - things are tight. He's not broke, but he's not buying COGS. You sales drop overtime... people in Toronto are not buying COGS anymore... Why? (because the $2M didn't stay in Toronto - it went else where) so you look around at other markets and low and behold over in Indonesia the middle class has grown, their economy is looking good (strong manufacturing), good base o skilled labour... hey this looks good - lets sell COGS in Indonesia... this is what is happening. Corporations over ther last fifty years have shot themselves in the foot. The only immediate recourse was to lend money to people who didn't have it (or as much of it as they did in the 60's,70's,80's) and it is catching up to them. I recently am looking into a manufactuing company - it is virtually impossible to have my wares manufactured in North America because teh current market price will not support the cost. If I do this I have to look ad asia or eastern europe to have them made.... why? Because of large companies' ability to reduce the cost of production. They have created a market of "poor" "entitled" people primarily to keep investors happy.

I don't think there is an empending end of the world occurring, nor a massive implosion of society (because that is what everyone is really talking about). ..But if there is you can blame me for not meditating enough (or properly), or adopting that belief system - or that other one.... this is more about persuasion then anything... oh and also There are many folks whose contirbution to the world is intrisitcally worthless. They then need to make up a reason as to why/what they are teaching(selling) is of tremendous importance.... just compensating for their own inherent guilt and angst. "Do this and you will help heal the world" "You'll be on of the 10,000 people to be assimilated into the next higher vibration" "you'll be important" "you'll be SPECIAL". If society collapsed tomorrow - the earth/nature would barely notice. And if it did implode tomorrow it is most like to balance nature out anyway.

I'm reminded of a couple that I met in Lao. He was Swiss, about 65 years old, who owned a pharma company in the US. She was Loatian. They married in the early 70's and moved to the US. They were in Lao because he was evading taxes (thats a side note but probably relevant). She had been complaining for twenty years that she left a communist country (Lao) to move to a "Free Market" and said she didn't know what it was like to do business in a communist country until she immigrated to the west.... Anyway, people always toute that it is businesses that create jobs (for jobbers) which leads to wealth of a community.... but this is only half of the equation. If the jobs created do not leave enough expendable income for these "jobbers" then in a consumer community you will not have consumers to sell your goods and services too... The problem is the wealth that a company enjoys does not trickle down to the "jobbers". The lower and middle classes support the companies with thier purchases.... But the wealth flows to investors which then horde or reinvest into companies whose wealth does not tickle down to the "jobbers" etc. etc. etc. Eventually that community's economy will turn to lending money to the "jobbers" from the investors to "stimulate" the economy.... and of course terms like "entitlement spending" and such things are then talked about. In the 60's there was a philisophical change in how to stimulate the economy which was to play with lending and mortgage rates and encourage "jobbers" who did not have money to spend - to borrow money and then spend it (or buy on payment plans etc etc) but what is over looked is the "leak" in the system. It is the investors which is where the wealth flows rather than it flowing into the hands of people who spend it in a manner which stimlates more business production and transaction.... I've been a business man and self-employed for my entire adult life (wth the exception of about 3 years). Micro and small businesses are godsent. When they prosper so do their employess (which then spend in a way which helps businesses prosper). When large businesses prosper so do their investors... and to continue to prosper they squeeze their workers and production/manufacturing vendors. Large business suck society dry - then move onto other countries, markets, or opportunities. Governments who promote the trickle down thinking are not supporting trickle down economies, they are promoting "trickle out" economies where the money trickles out of the simple system which keeps this all chugging along (simply you and me buying stuff at a store) and placed that purchasing power (money) into the hands of investors. If you do not support the lower and middle classes you will simplly run out of a market to sell your stuff to... what is left? Lend them money yourself so they can continue to buy your stuff Then how do you collect? If you do collect your right back to where you started - a dried up market which doesn't have the money to buy your stuff. Around 'round we go. Governments attempt to then support the lower and middle classes, and at the same time support business which do not... then get called socialist. Businesses should be doing this support as a matter of self interest and survival... but nobody in those irony towers look very far down the road or from a consideration of the society as a whole and their place in it.... they review practices based on quarterly projections from the view of their own individual markets... gone are the days of truely good business leaders which undertstood that if the average man/woman is not working and being rewarded then this will end in thier own (the business leaders) demise. Gone are the rare breed that were willing to take personal responsibility for that... oh wait unless of course you do business with micro and samll business owners.... then you will find hoardes of folks that understand this important and simple truth.

agreed. Trick to quell buyers remorse: maintain the persception handed to you the moment you were persuaded to buy (believe, commit,... [enter preference here]). Wonder what P&T would do with the KL clips floating around?

Now here's a guy that's thinking straight! Good show Scotty. Keep in mind, it's in the hands of a Canuck! (http://www.macleans....5_126689_126689 http://thedonovan.co...ves/002112.html http://www.ctv.ca/se...26271952413_269 ) (Couldn't find the article about the head shot at 2100m which took out the driver of the lead truck of a convoy traveling around 20Km/hr) I like it! (it's not really a knife is it)

Well there aren't many guns north of the 49th - so I don't anticipate many laying around.... Do anticipate allot of our southernly neighbours making their way up here though - and I'm sure they will have a few.... Prefer a forest or a hill for my kids over Disneyland anyday and frees up the cash to be prepared for when the northern exodus begins. (U gotta know I'm kidding)... just keep in mind the intrisic value of a gold chain doesn't hold much water compared to, well, a tin pot with no holes. The pot win once you manage to get your fire started (fire gods permiting and all).

Alright! Now we're talk'n!! Finally gett'n some good stuff out'a this thread. Bookmarks this reply 'cause the rest of the thread is bollocks! Okay, so Joe, the mini14 or the 1911! Mini 14 (it's pretty too!) 1911 (I like this one too.... it's a tarus just like me- oh ya you gotta squeeze right - not pull) Will do.... now how'bout something for the little lady - got anything in your closet for that? I've got my primitve techinologies under control - so this might round our the resources (if ya know what I mean)... Here's an image of the Beck WSK (not the cheapo movie crap being sold) (Mine was comissioned about 15 years ago directly from David Beck himself - stood in his shop and ran down the whole process of handcrafting these works of art - nice man - like his mom too) but Joe - what if I want to hit from 2000 metres away - and how'bout something nice and quiet - maybe a compound bow? Let's start thinking outa the box here!

MAL!!! - YOU'RE A PUPPY!! Anyone know where to get at the original series? My wife wanted to see it tonight until I reminded her that night-shy... whatever's movies always seem super interesting and generally result in a let-down. We decided to stay in instead. (ooo la la!).

This shouldn't be overlooked. It is a matter of distinguishing causation from outcome. Anyway.... Here is a hint at where I stand.... @ralis - thumbs up @joeblast - have any firearms reccomendations

This shouldn't be overlooked. It is a matter of distinguishing causation from outcome. Here is hwere I stand.... @ralis - thumbs up

I find it interesting how a non-judgemental view transmutes into a judgement.

LOL

We'll not that I would up a conversation like that - however I thought he had you mixed up with Vajrahridaya

Probably a mute point, and I may need to be corrected on this. When I lived in Asia there wasn't really any delineation between Buddhist and Taoist. On the same note when I lived in Nepal there was no delineation between Buddhism and Hinduism, each prayed at the others temples etc- Buddha was considered the 5th Vajrasatva.... interestingly so was Jesus and again they didn't make the delineation between Hinduism or Christianity (as Jesus was considered one of the Vajrasatvas)... anyway at least that is what I found "on the streets" there.... so perhaps the strong delineations between Buddhism - Toaism are....well, made up in your heads.

I agreed. WWJD (what would Joseph [ Campbell ] DO)

It is always tough to separate the role from the individual. Allot of what I say here is also from my own experience in teaching – that being very small scale – not a large organization etc. So these dynamics emerge right way – not after they become huge religions. At some point, when a group moves from a few to an actual group, there is a need to "organize" the teaching, but also to stream line the message. At that point I believe the seeds for all of this stuff is planted. Good Point!

You're assuming I am insulted. None of this is personal by the way.

Thanks for this. Let me qualfy two things. My posts aren't exclusive to Buddhism or any other set system. And they are not geared at the individuals but rather what happens to all things when they instituitionalize. so it is really the how the organizations develope which lead to the possiblity of abuse by some. I think the last hundred years or so is the first time in human history where the shortcomings of this type of organizational development won't hold water or at least won't for long. I think will will start to see how teaching are presented in the west will be altered and adapted without it being a watered down "they can't handle it" way, but rather a real effort to improve.

Disqualifing my statements as "oh he must be hurt" is a form of ad hominem. I'm pointing theses things out because it is the topic at hand. Perhaps ,in an earlier post, my use of the word "me" instead of one, we or someone may have lead you to a different conclusion. It is a false assumption you are makeing. I have teachers I love and respect dearly, others I love and respect which I (and they do to) know have they're flaws, and other which I don't have much respect for, for good reason... such as life.

Not so much the fear of bending my own – but rather imparting a less effective framework which doesn’t provide or disqualifies the need to validate. I.E. “you can fly if you flap your arms the way the old masters do” – then in flapping the arms there is no flight –“… That is because you are not clear of intent and are weighed down by negativity…(enter here more contrived framework of reality which ignores important information such as the theory of flight or aerodynamics).” I agree that the framework is the repository of delusion as well – however a validation framework is important. No? I find it difficult to imagine an existence where there is no means of reality testing – also don’t see a means to evolve or grow without one – could be my own laziness and ignorance though. So (adding a little more effort), a validation framework I could see hinges on the assumption that “reality” is hard and external and thus my internal experience then needs to be validated somehow to measure the accuracy of the experience against this external reality… Okay so I have played with that a bit over the years… reality is malleable and highly subjective or rather the subjectivity of it is inescapable… I have a series of experience where the majority of the occurrence could not be validated and with a mainstream approach could have been considered highly delusional. However the outcome was highly validated in a very precise and accurate way. So the conundrum I found myself in was … I couldn’t ignore the experience in totality because of the outcome, yet couldn’t fully embrace the experience as entirely real because of the rest could not be or was proven to be invalid. All that I was left with after this was something along the lines that 1) my experience as I experienced it was real to me (a fact I could not deny) 2)the form (the details of the experience) was just that – form or appearance of information as it emerged 3) in the end the information was clear… and the conclusion was to throw away the form (labelled as unreal or real only in a phenomenological sense only) and keep the information (labelled real)… So I would guess at this point that struggle could be seen as attempting to find delineations for a structured validation framework… or attempting to put an experience from an unstructured framework into a structured one…. Is this applicable? Do you see an importance for a validation framework? If so how and why? I find its importance to be paramount? Not in a fear based way –but rather reconcile conflicting information over the years about it – which creates this contradiction of finding a validation framework for “Validation Frameworks”. Perhaps I don’t understand what you mean by VF’s So a tree squirrel gliding from one tree to the next has no structured view on flight, at the same time is not deluded to its possibility or limitations… Perhaps I am assuming Structured and unstructured views as relative to the viewer (thus just redefining perspective). Can you give an example of structured intent versus unstructured? I think I need to be familiar with your lexicon before I’ll get anywhere with this.

Thank you for that. So I guess what gets my ire up is the idea of an absolute enlightenment - a destination... or some line that once crossed now allows for that individual to be some sort of authority on truth or reality - when IME I find it is still (enlightenment) relative. And the only difference between the sparkly moments and spiky ones is the context o the experience. This context is intrinsically made up of things like, belief, concept and language- meaning. All the same stuff of delusion and illusion. Today’s enlightenment is tomorrows ignorance (thus kill Buddha on the path). So this idea that venerated souls have some monopoly on wisdom, clarity, truth IMHO is bollocks. What they have is a well constructed framework which allows them to convey a context to this type of experience. That context may be made up of Eastern or Western thought, Buddhist or Taoist concepts, or existential thought etc. These particular types of frameworks are intrinsically focussed on experience itself, reality, illusion etc. so one can be lead down the path that if these framework is understood then anything pertaining to reality, illusion, experience etc is thus understood. And this is false. I have know a few - some very very adept individuals - some would (and I did at the time) consider enlightened - and over time their own person issues/limitations to the context of their experience have shone through as brightly as their enlightenment. Issue here is if we are to hold this idea of an absolute awareness that these individuals have attained then we are establishing a context which ignores important information (for instance these are humans with normal human flaws) which leads to greater ignorance - more delusion. Again, the need to strip the gurus. We are also actively taught that if we are not humble enough to bow at their feet - or do not do some mental house cleaning regarding doubts that we have of them, then we are not worthy students. All of these things are said about not being able to learn if you are doubting teacher etc... when really the arguments being made are pretty weak. What it comes down to is a single person cannot effectively teach a group of people if there are a handful who monopolise time with critical questions - an individual cannot keep a group of people cohesively committed and progressing if they are processing through doubts that may rise from these questions.... it has little to do with actual teachings and more to do with the logistics of teaching - especially when 90% of the time the answer is "keep practicing and it will come clear". This is fine if it were presented in this context - call a spade a spade - but it is not. It is presented as individuals which have cross some line, graduated to some level, crossed some stream which demands our unquestioning respect and devotion. If we are not willing to give it then we are not worthy. This then is the planted seed, the cornerstone in the foundation which allows and can lead to abuse of the position - whether it is intentional abuse or not. This type of foundation and abuse is rife throughout western history, thus the change of focus to the individual - (democracy etc) It is born of continual abuse of these types of elevated positions. The elevated persons position is seen as an indication that something is wrong and needs to be suspected not bowed down to. We have put into place checks and balances of people in authoritative roles (think college of physicians, scientific method, etc not just democracy), simply because history has taught us that if we do not at least attempt to hold the people at the helm accountable then the consequences can be dire. It is not to say these things work effectively, it is to say the doubting western mind has developed this way for good reason.

The idea that I am not enlightened now is to say there is an inherent flaw, don't you see the very concept of enlightenment and attainment of it draws a line of duality - enlightened vs deluded. The rest is semantical gymnastics.

If you are not enlightened then you are not qualified to make the statement that traditions evolve if at the healm there is an enlightened master. We have heard these types of statements for thousands of years and have been let down badly, lead down bad roads, killed, raped, been forced to kill, been convinced to kill for thousands of years as well. This is not truth - this is people at the healm , at the very least, not wanting to be bothered with critical questions - then a mythology is built to keep people from "bothering master"; and at the very worst they want total power over you and your resources.