C T

There are arguments to be made for compliance with strict protocols too. Taiwan is the leading example of this: Population 23.8 mil. Total cases 718. Total deaths 7. Active cases 129. Total cases/1M population: 30 Whats baffling is that the supposedly 'less advanced' countries have been faring much better. For instance, Tanzania: Population 60.4 mil. Total cases 509. Total deaths 21. Total cases/1m population: 8 Cambodia: Population 16.8 mil. Total cases 350. Total deaths 0. Total cases/1m population: 21 Laos: Population 7.3 mil. Total cases 41. Total deaths 0. Total cases/1m population: 6 Mongolia, Vietnam, Burundi, Bhutan, Papua New Guinea are also on the 'faring much better' list. Especially of note is Vietnam (97 mil population - 0.4 deaths/million) and Burundi (12 mil population - 0.08 deaths/million).

Easy as breathing Contraction and expansion Not one, yet not two....

ALAIN BADIOU ~ “We live in a contradiction, a brutal state of affairs, profoundly inegalitarian – where all existence is evaluated in terms of money alone – is presented to us as ideal. To justify their conservatism, the partisans of the established order cannot really call it ideal or wonderful. So instead, they have decided to say that all the rest is horrible. Sure, they say, we may not live in a condition of perfect Goodness. But we’re lucky that we don’t live in a condition of Evil. Our democracy is not perfect. But it’s better than the bloody dictatorships. Capitalism is unjust. But it’s not criminal like Stalinism. We let millions of Africans die of AIDS, but we don’t make racist nationalist declarations like Milosevic. We kill Iraqis with our airplanes, but we don’t cut their throats with machetes like they do in Rwanda, etc..”

Women are inherently stronger than men. People like Glenn Morris and others who think like him, that kundalini and what not are contributors, that they will need to acquire certain traits to make them excel ahead of men, shows a lack of understanding, to put it politely. Personally, I believe the reason is because men generally have more to prove, and therefore more reasons to like and enjoy camaraderie and communion in the process. Not that women don't enjoy the same, just maybe their expectations are different.

Woman's handwriting Extracting words from Venus Giving life to prose...

*Freud ~ When I promised my patients help and relief through the cathartic method, I was often obliged to hear the following objections, “You say, yourself, that my suffering has probably much to do with my own relation and destinies. You cannot change any of that. In what manner, then, can you help me?” To this I could always answer: “I do not doubt at all that it would be easier for fate than for me to remove your sufferings, but you will be convinced that much will be gained if we succeed in transforming your hysterical misery into everyday unhappiness, against which you will be better able to defend yourself with a restored nervous system.” (Studies in Hysteria, p. 232)

I chose an eternity of thisLike falling angelsThe world disappearedLaughing into the fireIs it always like this?Flesh and blood and the first kissThe first coloursThe first kissWe writhed under a red lightVoodoo smileSiamese twinsA girl at the window looks at me for an hourThen everything falls apartBroken inside meIt falls apart.... Full lyrics https://www.flashlyrics.com/lyrics/the-cure/siamese-twins-06

Big pharma, in collaboration with the wealthiest elites, finally devised an immortal golden goose. The gift that keeps on giving is an understatement. It's going to be mandatory for all air passengers to show they've been vaccinated once this thing gets into full swing. I want to travel, but adamantly rejects the idea of inoculation. (adios, freedom...)

The Buddha's teaching on anattā, or not-self, is often mystifying to many Westerners. When we hear the term "not-self" we think that the Buddha was answering a question with a long history in our culture — of whether there is or isn't a self or a soul — and that his answer is perverse or confusing. Sometimes it seems to be No, but the Buddha doesn't follow through with the implications of a real No — if there's no self, how can there be rebirth? Sometimes his answer seems to be No with a hidden Yes, but you wonder why the Yes is so hard to pin down. If you remember only one thing from these talks, remember this: that the Buddha, in teaching not-self, was not answering the question of whether there is or isn't a self. This question was one he explicitly put aside. The path to true happiness begins with right view, the understanding that helps clear up the mind's bewilderment. Right view is not just a matter of having correct opinions about why there's suffering and what can be done about it. Right view also means knowing how you gain right opinions by asking the right questions, learning which questions help put an end to suffering, which questions get in the way, and how to use this knowledge skillfully on the path to true happiness. This means that right view is strategic. In fact, all of the Buddha's teachings are strategic. They are not simply to be discussed; they are to be put to use and mastered as skills so as to arrive at their intended aim. The Buddha understood that the issues of our life are defined by our questions. A question gives a context to the knowledge contained in its answer — a sense of where that knowledge fits and what it's good for. Some questions are skillful in that they provide a useful context for putting an end to suffering, whereas others are not. Once, one of the Buddha's monks came to see him and asked him a list of ten questions, the major philosophical questions of his time. Some of the questions concerned the nature of the world, whether it was eternal or not, finite or not; others concerned the nature and existence of the self. The Buddha refused to answer any of them, and he explained the reason for his refusal. {He offered the analogy of being shot by a poisoned arrow as explanation}. Usually when we hear the teaching on not-self, we think that it's an answer to questions like these: "Do I have a self? What am I? Do I exist? Do I not exist?" However, the Buddha listed all of these as unskillful questions. Once, when he was asked point-blank, "Is there a self? Is there no self?" he refused to answer. He said that these questions would get in the way of finding true happiness. So obviously the teaching on not-self was not meant to answer these questions. To understand it, we have to find out which questions it was meant to answer. As the Buddha said, he taught two categorical teachings: two teachings that were true across the board and without exceptions. These two teachings form the framework for everything else he taught. One was the difference between skillful and unskillful action: actions that lead to long-term happiness, and those that lead to long-term suffering. The other was the list of the four noble truths: the truth of suffering, the cause of suffering, the end of suffering, and the path to the end of suffering. If you want to put an end to suffering and stress, these two categorical teachings carry duties or imperatives. In terms of the first teaching, you want to avoid unskillful action and give rise to skillful action. In terms of the second, the four truths are categories for framing your experience, with each category carrying a specific duty you have to master as a skill. You need to know which of the truths you're encountering so that you can deal with that truth in the right way. Suffering must be comprehended, the cause of suffering must be abandoned, the end of suffering must be realized, and the path to the end of suffering must be developed as a skill. These are the ultimate skillful actions, which means that the mastery of the path is where the two sets of categorical teachings come together. The path begins with discernment — the factors of right view and right resolve — and discernment begins with this basic question about which actions are really skillful: "What, when I do it, will lead to long-term welfare and happiness?". The Buddha's teaching on not-self — and his teaching on self — are, in part, answers to this question. To fit into this question, perceptions of self and perceptions of not-self are best viewed as kamma or actions: actions of identification and dis-identification. In the terms of the texts, the perception of self is called an action of "I-making" and "my-making (ahaṅkāra mamaṅkāra)." The perception of not-self is part of an activity called the "not-self contemplation (anattānupassanā)." Thus the question becomes: When is the perception of self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness, when is the perception of not-self a skillful action that leads to long-term welfare and happiness? This is the reverse of the way that the relationship between questions of kamma and not-self are usually understood. If you've ever taken an introductory course on Buddhism, you've probably heard this question: "If there is no self, who does the kamma, who receives the results of kamma?" This understanding turns the teaching on not-self into a teaching on no self, and then takes no self as the framework and the teaching on kamma as something that doesn't fit in the framework. But in the way the Buddha taught these topics, the teaching on kamma is the framework and the teaching of not-self fits into that framework as a type of action. In other words, assuming that there really are skillful and unskillful actions, what kind of action is the perception of self? What kind of action is the perception of not-self? So, to repeat, the issue is not, "What is my true self?" but "What kind of perception of self is skillful and when is it skillful, what kind of perception of not-self is skillful and when is it skillful?" We already engage in these perceptions all of the time and have been doing so ever since we were children. We have many different perceptions of self. Each sense of self is strategic, a means to an end. Each comes with a boundary, inside of which is "self" and outside of which is "not-self." And so our sense of what's self and what's not-self keeps changing all of the time depending on our desires and what we see will lead to true happiness. Take an example from your childhood. Suppose you have a younger sister, and someone down the street is threatening her. You want to protect her. At that moment she is very much your sister. She belongs to you, so you will do whatever you can to protect her. Then suppose that, when you've brought her home safely, she begins to play with your toy car and won't give it back to you. Now she's no longer your sister. She's the Other. Your sense of your self, and of what is yours and not yours, has shifted. The boundary line between self and not-self has changed. You've been doing this sort of thing — changing the boundaries of what's self and not-self — all of the time. Think back on your life — or even for just a day — to see the many times your sense of self has changed from one role to another. Normally we create a sense of self as a strategy for gaining happiness. We look for what abilities we have in order to gain a happiness we want. Those abilities are then ours. The hand we can use to reach for the object we want is our hand; the loud voice we can use to scare off the bullies threatening our sister is our voice. This is why the element of control is so essential to our sense of self: We assume that the things we can control are us or ours. Then we also try to think about which part of ourselves will live to enjoy the happiness we're trying to gain. These things will change depending on the desire. Unfortunately, our desires tend to be confused and incoherent. We're also unskillful in our understanding of what happiness is. Thus we often end up with an inconsistent and misinformed collection of selves. You can see this clearly as you meditate: You find that the mind contains many different inner voices expressing many conflicting opinions as to what you should and shouldn't be doing to be happy. ~ Courtesy of Thanissaro Bhikkhu, excerpted from one of his talks called *Strategies of Self & Not-self* (sorry for the long copy & pasting, but this topic needs proper Buddhist perspective, and I find this excerpt to be relevant enough to do just that.... adding perspective, nothing more.)

~ SHANTIDEVA ~ Those who wish to crush the many sorrows of existence, Who wish to quell the pain of living beings, Who wish to have experience of a myriad joys Should never turn away from Bodhichitta. Should Bodhichitta come to birth In those who suffer, chained in prisons of samsara, In that instant they are called the children of the Blissful One, Revered by all the world, by gods and humankind. For like the supreme substance of the alchemists, It takes our impure flesh and makes of it The body of a Buddha, jewel beyond all price. Such is Bodhicitta. Let us grasp it firmly!

These mist covered mountains Are a home now for me But my home was the lowlands And always will be Someday you'll return to Your valleys and your farms And you'll no longer burn to be Brothers in arms Through these fields of destruction Baptism of fire I've watched all your suffering As a battle raged high And though they did hurt me so bad In the fear and alarm You did not desert me My brothers in arms There's so many different worlds So many different suns And we have just one world But we live in different ones Now the sun's gone to hell And the moon's riding high Let me bid you farewell Every man has to die But it's written in the starlight And every line in your palm We are fools to make war On our brothers in arms

“What constitutes pretense is that, in the end, you don’t know whether it’s pretense or not.” ~ Jacques Lacan

_Nature loves to hide_ *Heraclitus, in his attempt at explaining hidden attunement, that unapparent connection (harmony) in all things.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of rowing there in a sampan. Its way more fun. And ecologically sound. You should try it some time.

If not for this joke of a pandemic, I'd probably be diving off the islands of Sabah now... (and the majority of Muslims in Sabah have little regard for syariah laws, I was told)

~ Yuval Noah Harari ~ “According to Buddhism, the root of suffering is neither the feeling of pain nor of sadness nor even of meaninglessness. Rather, the real root of suffering is this never-ending and pointless pursuit of ephemeral feelings, which causes us to be in a constant state of tension, restlessness and dissatisfaction. Due to this pursuit, the mind is never satisfied. Even when experiencing pleasure, it is not content, because it fears this feeling might soon disappear, and craves that this feeling should stay and intensify. People are liberated from suffering not when they experience this or that fleeting pleasure, but rather when they understand the impermanent nature of all their feelings, and stop craving them. This is the aim of Buddhist meditation practices. In meditation, you are supposed to closely observe your mind and body, witness the ceaseless arising and passing of all your feelings, and realize how pointless it is to pursue them. When the pursuit stops, the mind becomes very relaxed, clear and satisfied. All kinds of feelings go on arising and passing – joy, anger, boredom, lust – but once you stop craving particular feelings, you can just accept them for what they are. You live in the present moment instead of fantasizing about what might have been. The resulting serenity is so profound that those who spend their lives in the frenzied pursuit of pleasant feelings can hardly imagine it. It is like a man standing for decades on the seashore, embracing certain ‘good’ waves and trying to prevent them from disintegrating, while simultaneously pushing back ‘bad’ waves to prevent them from getting near him. Day in, day out, the man stands on the beach, driving himself crazy with this fruitless exercise. Eventually, he sits down on the sand and just allows the waves to come and go as they please. How peaceful!” Mr Harari ~ https://www.ynharari.com/about/

Malaysia has its own Islamic police who actively seek to enforce the syariah laws - alcohol consumption is illegal (haram), but child marriage is not. They're a confused bunch. In the capital city of Kuala Lumpur, its common to see young Muslims patronising bars and clubs even though they know the risks involved. They don't care. Most of the women who frequent the nightspots are 'connected' or 'kept' by wealthy, older Muslim professionals or politicians who in turn can make charge sheets disappear like magic. Many of them (the Muslim big hitters) are made shareholders of licensed (to sell alcohol) entertainment outlets, although technically thats haram as well, so proxies are often used. Clubs with Muslim shareholders tend to not get raided - obviously, corruption is rife. Most of these places have well guarded VIP rooms, and thats where the younger set aim to get picked to get into these select and very private areas of the clubs where once in, they not only partake freely of champagne, wild parties, orgiastic liaisons.... but they get paid, a lot, for their 'company'. According to my date who's well clued in on whats happening in the capital city, nobody bats an eyelid seeing young ladies being offered a few thousand bucks each for 'extras'. And its not just the women who get to enjoy these highly lucrative proposals. The level of hypocrisy here is astounding among the wealthy and the politicians who depend on them.

It's quite common for people to assume "I'm meditating" as one layer, and then "oops.. There's all the consequential stuff being churned up from it", as a separate, distinct layer (upon other layers). In my view this is a faulty approach because it shows that one is still caught in the notion of an independently existing engager of meditation. It will help to first determine who and where is this supposedly fixed appearance of one who engages. The Buddha said all existential doubts will be allayed when the notion of an independently existing self is resolved. The Bahiya Sutta helps to guide contemplation on this question of the self. Link to commentary on said teaching https://www.lionsroar.com/take-a-good-hard-look/

Dedicated to all cool TDB cats, and to our 16 year old dame who sadly left us yesterday.

They were, but the value of Japanese whiskies have been inflating like mad the last 2 years or so, I think mainly due to the mushrooming of the Chinese whisky market. Its a recent thing. They used to scoff at whisky, preferring to stay faithful to their XO brandy and cognac. Not anymore, which is rather tragic for us poor whiskey snobs.

If you haven't yet, I'd like to suggest a try of the Yamazaki 12. The 18 costs about USD$1500 to $1800 per bottle now, if found. Technically, its no longer available in the US open market. The 12 is a fraction that, at about $400. As for the 25, I have no idea what to say about it other than its out of my reach, retailing at something like 33k Malaysian $.

.

A young, liberal Muslim asked me out on a date on the 1st of November and we shared a bottle of red wine over dinner. She wanted some insight into Buddhism, and I reluctantly obliged, it being a Sunday and all... Sabbath day, right? My last sip of Japanese whisky was back in January, during the Chinese lunar new year. On the 25th. It was late afternoon, in fact. Its good at times to be able to recall blissfully insignificant details like these with ease.

As if never there Yet that weary history Orientates the now...