JustARandomPanda

Owledge has a point. I just don't think he explained his position very well. It has to do with the nature of compound interest on types of money transfers that have a far higher likelihood of putting the debtor in a position of involuntary 'debt indentured servitude' to people or institutions whom already have a lot of power thanks to their ratio of capital vis-a-vis the debtor populace. This is actually one of the reasons several spiritual traditions such as Catholicism and Islam were very against interest (aka Usury). Islam for example has many teachings from Mohammed about how Usury (compounding interest on debt) is disapproved by Allah yet profit itself is ok. The two are not the same according to Islam. Catholicism had similar teachings. The reason is simply based on what we see in everyday life. Compounding interest on debt that can not be repaid (setting aside for the moment the reasons for the non-repayment - obviously some legit and others not-so-legit) creates big problems in societies that have negative spill-over effects into areas one would never have thought of it effecting while taking out the loan. If people were content with agreed-upon-in-advance percentage of profit (Catholic and Islamic-style finance - aka simple interest, not compound) then some problems of involuntary debt-servitude that we see today would not be as big an issue in societies. It wouldn't solve every problem of course but it would cut out at least a few significant problems we see today. Owledge was just pointing out that Jubilee - by paying off the loan on the debt collection market - sends zero signals to society the current way the system is set up for certain kinds of debt creates a lot of pain for both the debtor and the creditor if even one thing in the payback schedule doesn't go as planned. A lot of people in these scenarios forget that creditors often do feel pain too (if somewhat less that the debtor of course but nonetheless they don't get out of jail free either...nobody likes losing money). Turtle Shell is right however in that Owledge's agitating for changing the system does not help the people who are trapped by that system right this very moment. That's why Jubilee is a double-edged sword. It both helps and hurts. By helping current debtors get out of indentured debt servitude it helps them a great deal - maybe up to 100% - but also sends the signal the market has found a way to help creditors not lose everything on their original loan (although it doesn't help future debtors one bit). Oddly...the fact that medical *does* have such a high default rate tells creditors to price medical loans at a very high interest rate...which then has the adverse effect of increasing the likelihood the debtor will default. The creditor knows this and plans the strategies accordingly. So who benefits from this most? I'd argue neither the creditor nor medical debtor but actually the medical industry. You know...the people who eventually end up with the money the loan was taken out for in the first place. There's zero truly serious threats to the medical industry's business (and thus profit) model right now to make them go on a serious hunt to find ways to make medical treatment more affordable and profitable at the same time. And a serious threat to the medical industry's current business model is the only reason things would or will ever make it change.

This was discussed last year among the mod team and the general conclusion was that the Taoist forum WAS supposed to be the Neigong/Qigong forum therefore a separate forum was redundant and not necessary and would turn the Taoist forum into an almost silent wasteland. There was also the worry expressed about too many subforums popping up doing the same to the General forum - ie. sucking the life out of any major activity there as well. I don't know.... time changes all things so who knows what may happen next? I can ask the other Mods to take a look and revisit the decision. And as always TTBs still have the freedom to make their case via PM directly to Sean himself. It's just that Sean is busy these days so the Mods never really can tell when he'll pop in or not (that's why I was surprised a Hermetic forum popped up so fast.). Also...as always... please remember only Sean has the power to actually create such a subforum. No Mods have this level of access.

oh my... I own the first 3 of Franz Bardon's books. I guess I should also get Frabato (or whatever it's called). I've never read any of them simply because my pile of books I want to read is absolutely enormous. I must confess however this thread is seriously tempting me into cracking open the first book tomorrow and checking out why FB is so highly esteemed.

Here's a blogger who details how to do Memory Palace techniques. Or this:

As Above, So Below? Did the ancients connect dots : Astrology, Theurgy, Innner Alchemy? who knows...

Definitely. If I recall correctly...this method was supposedly popularized by an ancient Greek. It's called the Memory Palace. The story goes he went to a banquet and in order to remember the name of each person at the banquet memorized them in a specific location in the room with an identifier significant to himself. Then the roof collapsed killing all but a few banquet guests (one of which was the guy whom memorized everyone). The bodies were supposedly so mangled few could be identified but he was able to tell the relatives and authorities which body was which because he'd keyed them to his internal memory palace. It's definitely a version of Da Mo's cave. Very useful.

This comes from some of my earliest notebooks while studying astrology, theurgy, etc. Note: It helps to temporarily set aside Chinese 5 element theory while learning this and try to learn this system on it's own terms without interference from other concepts or systems. *********** The following (If I recall correctly) was first proposed by Empedocles in the 5th century b.c.e and arranged in final form 150 years later by Aristotle. The Primary Qualities (The active pole) 1. Hot = Electric a. expansive b. centrifugal c. active d. subtle e. luminous f. radiant 2. Cold = Magnetic a. contractive b. centripetal c. static d. dark e. heavy f. dense Both of the above are the ACTIVE qualities This is the ENERGY pole The interplay of the 2 Active qualities gives rise to a new Pole. The Passive Quality Pole. These are: 3. Moist a. fluid b. cohesive c. molds easily d. adaptable e. generated primarily from Cold 4. Dry a. hardness b. resistence c. rigidity e. generated primarily from Hot The 2 Passive Qualities give rise to FORM This is the FORM pole *********************** The interplay of the 4 poles (2 active, 2 passive - that is, energy + form) give rise to the 4 elements Fire = Hot + Dry (non-molding) Water = Cold + Moist (molding) Air = Hot + Moist (molding) Earth = Cold + Dry (non-molding) In more modern terms we might say Fire = Temperature Water = Cohesion Earth = Solidity Air = Motion ***************** Properties of the Elements Fire a. masculine (yang) b. electric c. active Water a. feminine (yin) b. magnetic c. passive Air a. masculine (yang) b. electric c. active Earth a. feminine (yin) b. magnetic c. passive And finally: QUINTESSENCE 1. Quintessence is the common (transcendent) substrate or background/foundation (my note: non-dual unity?) of all the above four elements. Quintessence itself is not an element. Big note on the prior: The Elements are not "things" (except maybe nominally for language purposes). They are actually descriptions of the process of Change. That is...they are "phases" of change. Do not re-ify the elements. Hard to do (in my experience) so I find it helpful to remind myself constantly the Elements are describing phase changes, not "things" per say. ************** Believe it or not the above I just listed is one of the most important foundations for beginning to understand the logic that was behind Western Astrology (and still is to those willing to suspend modern scientistic materialistic beliefs) and why it was considered one of the classical Hermetic Arts (co-equal with Theurgy and Inner Alchemy). Hint to the above statement: "As above, so below".

Wow. I've never thought my writing was all that particularly pleasant or informative but thank you for the thumbs up. Hmm.... You really think people would even give a hoot to read something I write about Theurgy, Astrology or whatever? Hmmm.... A Hermetic forum. I like the idea but I do wonder if there are enough people at TTB who would be interested enough to participate in it? Also I wonder if it starts to get to a point where so many subforums proliferate it starts to become pointless having a "general forum". The only person able to actually create a Hermetics subforum is Sean. None of the mods have that admin power. I would recommend anyone who wants a Hermetic forum to send a PM to Sean directly. Then be ready to wait several weeks for a reply as that's approximately how often he pops onto TTB to check up on things here (ie. once every 1-2 months or so). I suppose alternately people could start a Hermetics Subforum Vote thread (maybe with a poll?) and post a yay or nay on the idea. That way I would have something to link to in a PM to Sean about to back up a request for such a subforum.

Ok. This section from the article was primarily what I was thinking of when I said that: Exchange the word "mortgages" with stupendous "medical bills" (disregarding the bits about property taxes, maintenance, etc) it has the same problem. Stupendous medical bill debt is a type of debt that has no way of earning income to pay itself back. The only hope is that the medical patient has some other form of income stream or collateral that can compensate for this lack of repayment ability inherent in medical debt. People who fall into Jubilee category are people who had none of those other compensating mechanisms or cash flow streams. It's definitely got them in quite a pickle. And it's why I do like the sentiment behind the Jubilee initiative. However...even though the Jubilee has well meaning motives it doesn't have the means of preventing the same thing from happening to future medical patients. p.s. wanted to add...if Jubilee somehow did become a fantastic success it could also drive up the prices of that "pennies on the dollar" debt purchased. So fewer medical debt would be bought to free future medical debtors.

Fascinating. I did not realize the Jubilee was specifically for medical debt. Hmmm. I do like the fact that it is a form of compassion for people who are financially distressed through no fault of their own (presumably). I'm not sure anyone would say the average cancer patient somehow is at fault for his/her cancer or inability to pay for treatment of it. OTOH...unless alternative means of payment are found the Jubilee will not be a long term solution because it still has the problems that other kinds of non-income-producing debt have. Quite good imo. Most chapters detail a Stoic practice you can begin doing. My favorite is the daily negative visualization. Oddly enough the result is just like the Stoics said. It makes you end up significantly appreciating what you already have. It's an effective way to stave off hedonistic adaption. Other practices end up making you not desire new things without genuine need (new clothes, new movies, new music, new car, new swag, etc etc etc). Bad for capitalism I suppose but good for one's psychological health - not to mention one's bank account. Although the Stoics had practices to prevent you from being attached to money (and status) as well. Other practices deal with pride and anger, etc.

Check this article out. Side note: The example he uses - mortgages - is one reason why I've always argued a primary home should not be seen or valued as an "investment" by the average homeowner but rather as a long term consumer good. Anyone who's ever lived in a house can attest how your "investment" will begin to fall to pieces around you bit by bit if you don't keep sinking yet more capital into it's upkeep. The real solution is one that very few people actually bother to implement. Do as the Stoics advised. Learn to value, rejoice and delight daily in that which you already have rather than constantly searching to acquire yet more. The Stoics developed a host of practices designed to help the Stoic student do exactly that.

Disagree with you here JB. I didn't vote for Obama. But neither did I vote for Romney. All the things you said Romney would *not* have done had he been elected I didn't buy for one single minute. Also, like The Lerner I admit I do not like the fact that the Religious Right are pretty much making the Republicans dance to their Xtian Fundie tune. As if only Fundie Protestant Christians are the only people on the planet who understand and act with high virtue, ethics and morals. That puts concerns like mine (which was the deciding factor in how I voted) totally in the backseat. I think there are a lot of Democrats who are NOT necessarily progressives but whom - like me - do not like the fact that the Republicans have been captured by the Fundie Christians and Neocon Hawks and very likely to fill lots of powerful positions in the gov with people from those 2 factions. And that was even more important and damaging to the rights of the Individual vs. the Collective in the long run than the fiscal problems this country faces. But to someone who thinks fiscal problems trumps social problems they'd conclude that Dems or people like me were really "voting themselves the treasury". Heaven forbid there be Dems or 3rd party people who think big social problems trump even big fiscal problems and decide those were the far more insidious (and longer term) damaging trends to the nation and so vote in the manner they think better addresses those longer term/deeper threats. No...that couldn't be a legitimate possibility...the real truth is they're helping themselves to the Treasury. It's really kind of sad. Back in my 20s - when I still voted for one of the major parties - I actually liked the Republicans. But the more they danced to the tune of the Christian Right and Neocons the less and less I liked them. Christian Fundies are in favor of the Individual only if it means you worship and act their approved way. If you don't act the way they define "following Jesus" they are NOT in favor of the rights of the Individual vs. the Collective like philosophers like John Locke espoused (especially if said Collective is their version Jesus-luvin-selves) since (their version) Jesus trumps individuals every time in their worldview. Neocons have yet to meet a "military intervention" or "military solution" they didn't like. Even though such means they significantly contribute to increasing the country's in-debtedness to sky-high proportions. Sadly that means the Republican Party - which used to (imo) adhere to 18th century Liberal Ideas better than Democrats in many instances - has itself become every bit as "Collective-luvin" as the people they condemn. They just like handing out the pork to different kinds of Collectives than the Dems but Collectives getting their share of pork it still remains. And Romney would not have changed that in the least. He'd simply re-direct which kinds of Collectives (aka factions/special interests) get the pork. He would've done lotsa nitpicking here and there to look like he was "solving things" but real solutions that honored John Locke's ideals would've remained out of his playbook. He's not a "Locke-ian" anymore than is Obama.

Can someone tell me what level 2 learning is? Unless Seeker simply means "university level" in-depth learning? Edit: Ah...I see Seeker answered it. Yes...it seems you mean university level research into the issues. Eh...well I wish people would do that with lotsa other issues than just the civil war. But we all have only so much free time or will to do such research. Even 'search engine' searching isn't a guarantee that what you pull up and read is actually *accurate*. Those are 2 separate issues.

A few articles. Whether you agree with them or not is another matter but thought I'd share them as I found them interesting. Could Texas Become a Blue State? The Real Reason Cities Lean Democratic 2nd one has some very telling maps...one's you've likely not seen before.

Here's an interesting article on a new breed of political statisticians and how they correctly called 50 of 50 states with these new math techniques. An excerpt of the article:

...

And this lovely ditty... Definitely it's a case of foxes guarding the hen house.

Yes. I've even seen the popular vote in my state be as close a split as 49% (liberal-leaning candidates) to 51% (conservative leaning candidates). The advantage of having a popular vote is that it would remind the entire populace of my state that the winning party did not get a "mandate" the way a winner-takes-all system makes it often seem and the way the winning party almost always loves to trumpet that it got. No...they did not get a mandate. There is no mandate if 40+% of voting citizens actually cast ballots against what you're proposing. If popular vote decided things the winners would still have to remember there's that other, pesky (typically substantial percent) who disagreed with their policies, proposed bills and compromises would potentially be easier to reach. Being a moderate might actually be in vogue again. In such a system it would (imo) be harder for each party to be captured by the polarized ends at the expense of those in the middle. At the very least the polarized extremes of either Party would need to do a much better job of convincing the moderate middle of why the party should shift to their extreme and show it would be beneficial to the populace as a whole.

Apologies - my memory of this is sketchy now but I took a class at University that studied the U.S. election process, it's history and the assorted laws that applied to it. The upshot - of what I remember from that class - is that YES the founding fathers actually did intend for the U.S. to have a "winner take all" election system. In it's original form their idea was that it would actually discourage political parties from forming (they termed them factions back in those days) and rather focus attention upon the person running for office and his record and the policies he was proposing. It's original intent was honest and noble imo. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way even in their very own lifetime. Then when it became clear that despite George Washington's wishes to the contrary - that political parties were indeed forming (ie. factions) it mimic'd Britain's 2 Party system (at that time). I'm not sure if Britain is still a 2 Party-only country or if it has now expanded to a similar system to Germany's. I used to live in Germany for a while and took University classes examining how other countries set up their governments, representation and vote processes. Another interesting little factoid. The vast majority of countries around the world have come to the conclusion - upon examination - that the parliamentary system, overall - is superior to the U.S.'s congress + presidential system of government organization in enfranchising various viewpoints and positions. Very few countries from the 19th century onward have chosen to mimic the U.S's style of government. They went for the parliamentary system nearly every time. As for throwing away my vote here's why I said it: Example: I live in a red state. It's a foregone conclusion that it'll cast all of its electoral votes for Romney. Since it's winner takes all that means anyone like me will cast a vote whose weight is worth Zero vs. anyone who voted Romney has the weight of 100. I've actually looked at the popular vote breakdown for my state in past elections going all the way back to Reagan. It's surprisingly far less right-leaning (when viewed only from the popular vote) than when looked at only electoral-wise. It's more like 46% liberal-leaning and 54% conservative - give or take a few points each way per election. Which to my way of thinking seems more reasonable in being "true to life". But when looking at the electoral vote - as well as it's outcome going back to FDR - you'd think my state was a hotbed of 90% hard core conservatives since then. The system is set up so that it actively disenfranchises voices like mine. And since the time of the Founders that hardcore exclusion process has only grown worse.

It's times like this when I think the parliamentary system of government is better than the congressional/presidential system the U.S. has always had. Personally I wish the U.S. had a parliament set up similar to Germany's 2 + 2 system. 2 major parties plus 2 minor parties. I'll vote tomorrow but it won't be for either Obama or Romney. Things will be biz as usual no matter which of those 2 wins. I know technically it'll be throwing my vote away as that's exactly as the Founding Fathers intended - one which I really disagree with them over. Unlike most Americans I don't venerate our Founders as godly sages.

I'm busy reading The Annalects and was thinking of posting the first chapter along with my thoughts. Unsure if I'll do things similar to the Tao te Ching and Chang Tzu forums or if each chapter I post will stick to a single thread. If anyone else is busy reading a Confucian (or Confucian-inspired text like from Mencius) feel free to post about it.

Ah Anamatva...you are missing out. I've read the book and it truly is pragmatic. Tolle's points were similar to themes stressed by Lao Tzu and the Buddha. He was mainly introducing the idea to people who have zero knowledge of the practices you and I know about that focusing one's attention on a single moment eventually gives rise to a serene, peacefulness within. He teaches this peacefulness within in turn gives rise to equanimity and later acceptance that's unconditional. Thus fully accepting of others despite their flaws and foibles. I had only 3 minor quibbles with the book. 1. It doesn't give an actual method these 'spirituality noobs' he targets can begin to practice and thus experentially understand first hand what he teaches in the book. 2. Because it doesn't give an actual method - and he doesn't stress that it takes time for this peaceful, harmonious, natural way of living to arise - gives people the wrong impression it takes zero effort on their part to get the fruits of what his book describes. 3. Because he focuses on the fruit of focusing on the "now" (equanimity, serenity, acceptance) a lot of people get the very wrong idea from his book this means it's "acceptance" of injustice. If you read his other works or talks you find out this is not what Tolle advocates. Injustice or harm to others (if you are able to prevent it) should be stopped. It's just that even while one is busy preventing harm or injustice one still has equanimity and acceptance of other beings - including even the perpetrators of said injustice or violence. You're sort of 'inoculated' against developing ill will toward them too. What the book is absolutely amazing at doing is describing the fruits such practices bring. Seriously. I've never read a better book in that regard. He displays the fruit of such practices and shows how it spills over into everyday life in everything we do. Because people can see what he's talking about they become inspired to finally take action and begin looking for a meditation (and/or qigong) practice to apply to their lives to bring the results about his book stresses. Would at least urge you to reconsider the decision to not read it. ****** Agree with Tibetan Ice that Tolle is anything but a "sad European windbag". I also have his Practicing the Power of Now audio book and it's got a lot of practical practices that people can begin incorporating into their daily lives - right in the midst of busy life. One of my favorites was his suggestion to ask one's self, "I wonder what my next thought will be?" and then sit and wait for it. Then ask it again...and wait for it. Wash, rinse, repeat. You begin to learn surprising things about yourself if you do that daily over an extended period of time. I like the Power of Now book so much I've decided to give copies as a Xmas gift this year to my mom and sister (I would've given a copy to my dad too except he doesn't read...heavy sigh...).

Currently Reading: A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy by William B. Irvine

Welcome to the Confucius forum. This forum was created for discussing the works attributed to Confucius as well as the influence of Confucian thought on Chinese culture (both ancient and modern), how it interacts with other Chinese traditions such as Taoism, Feng Shui, Chinese shamanism, etc. Please feel free to post.

What is Neo-Advaita and how does it differ from Advaita? Whom is teaching Neo-Advaita?