JustARandomPanda

Yes I know about Witch. I've read her posts around various forums for years. She used to post at Thundersplace.org and Measurection.org under the name Zaneblue and would get into loooooong threads (50+ pages deep) on why we are all dooming ourselves to a cooked atmosphere like Venus in the next few years. I remember when she posted at Thundersplace she was ecstatic (her words) at the Wall Street Derivatives/ Housing Bubble bust and subsequent Great Recession because she saw it as the only means to slow the U.S's race toward turning the world into a Venus hot-house. I like Witch/Zaneblue but if you are going to say JB is biased then Witch/Zaneblue is every bit as much so. Just because she has a degree in mathematics from Harvard (I think it was Harvard...maybe it was Princeton but whatever...) doesn't mean she is exempt from falling into the same logical fallacy traps I have often done. Indeed if I understand Drew correctly the mathematization of these questions can often be used to draw people's attention away from (in Drew's opinion) faulty logic underlying many math models used to justify arguments one way or the other. But the above info all about JB doesn't answer my question which actually has nothing to do with what I'm trying to look into. I'm not interested in JB's personality, biases or conclusions. AGW has axioms - just like the Global Warming Deniers do. I'm wanting to know what axioms those initial climatologists used to formulate their hypotheses and then subsequently test. And I want to know why subsequent climatologists found those axioms convincing and started building a whole body of research upon those axioms. Why those axioms and not some other? This same question can be asked equally of the climate deniers btw. Yes..JB's tossing in his opinions. Most people do it at some point or other in a debate. I do it plenty. I've seen you, Drew and NAJA do it plenty too. I've seen Witch do it a lot too. And I get that out of that list you don't take JB seriously. But that's still beside the point because I wasn't wondering about that in the first place. Maybe JB does have a biased axe to grind? So what? According to logic even if he is a secret paid shill junk science purveyor it doesn't address my original question. At best it just obfuscates it and gets people off-track. It's doing what JMG talked about earlier. It's basically hollering "JB Alert! - Cold Prickly, Cold Prickly, COLD PRICKLY!!!!!" By focusing on the original climatologist axioms and hypothesis it negates any power JB might have to spin-doctor the debate if that's what he's on a mission to do.

I know this was directed at JB but I don't see it that way. All I saw JB calling into question is the axioms used to get a probability of <1. I never saw him put forward a different axiom that would lead to an absolute = 1. Also as far as I remember from logic class the source of a supporting argument or data is a separate issue from the argument itself. It's my understanding that each argument will have at least one and possibly more axiom(s) that itself/themselves can not be proven. They're just givens and you proceed from there. And it was my understanding from reading JB's posts he's calling into question these axioms climate researchers are using, he's not putting forth a different alternative. At the very least I think I'd like to see the group of original studies and their axioms that began to convince other researchers they were the correct axioms to start with and then proceeded to continue building into their research from there. For isn't this how researchers build up a body of work that they then begin to check against later? I don't know of any science currently where many researchers invent their axioms for an experiment each time from scratch.

Here is JMG's intro to his GreenWizard website/forum ****edit*** While we're at this one can always join Instructibles or the Maker culture. That is - taking things that one might not use much and use them to create something totally new (example: $10 eco washing mashine). Ditto for old electronics with the Maker culture.. There's even the Society of Primitive Technology that I used to be a member of.

This is exactly what JMG constantly talks about! The only thing I know about at the moment vis-a-vis Green Wizardry is the GreenWizards forum he runs. The only reason I know there is a "program" of de-petroleumizing your living is because maybe once in a blue moon JMG will mention it briefly in his blog posts. But from what I've read from the responses of his readers who participate in it it sounds like a program that can take several years to make a full switch over. He actually inspires a not-small number of his readers to do what you do - LIVE "green" and thus their pocketbook signals it too. Anyway I'm interested in joining them. I have only lately been looking into this stuff (as in just these past 2 weeks) seriously because I live on SSD in a small apt (550 sq ft) that's rather old for my town (ie early 1930s) and don't have any say in how the apt management company spends their budget on maintenance repairs and have zero land and space to grow my own food or catch, purify and store water. (I own those 2 latter books but it takes money and lots of space to do what they teach - two things I don't have). There's only so much one can do to 'greenify' property that's owned by someone else but if anyone can teach how I suspect it's all those Green Wizards. Anyway - about JMG - there's his book The Long Descent which I'm about to check out from the library. Supposedly it's partly designed to help you ween yourself off of petroleum dependent living. I'm also currently reading his The Wealth of Nature: Economics as if Survival Mattered and am liking it quite a lot. And there's his latest book Not the Future We Ordered: The Psychology of Peak Oil and the Myth of Eternal Progress which was published just last month. I'm hoping my library will pick it up soon. There's also one other book I'm hoping to get via inter-library loan. Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air And Drew...You never answered my other question...is there such a thing as being "too Eastern" in one's lifestyle and PoV? Just curious...

Whom then do you find to be not "too Western" these days? I'd say inspiring most of the people who follow his blog posts to actually ween themselves off of petroleum-reliant lifestyles to be at least equal to political activism in importance. If their lifestyles don't change it won't be signaled with their wallets either because their money will actively support what they claim to be trying to prevent too much of. And I don't think he's ever maintained activism is not important. Only that it has become predominantly ineffectual in the last 30 years in the wider culture because too few activists do what you did - walk their talk about getting away from constant consumerist consumption. In fact, I don't know any activists except you who lived for 10 years sans car and existed off of dumpster diving daily for their food. If more people followed his Green Wizard step by step program petroleum corporations would find a lot fewer buyers of their products - and the earth might be healthier for it. His Systems Thinking explanations using the Tao te Ching is pretty good imo. And is there such a thing as being "too Eastern" in someone's PoV and lifestyle?

JMG's follow up to the prior post

Another good read...especially relevant to this discussion. Personal note: I've always liked JMG's emphasis on changing one's own personal daily life habits as being the first and most important step of any hope for lasting change in society... The Twilight of Protest

Woo-Ji Good news. Here's your new PPF. It's ready to go and you should be the moderator for it. If you discover any problems or glitches with it post a note here or send a mod a PM detailing the problem.

I aim to live it non-conceptually. Doing so is what sages once called 'having the fortune of Heaven".

+1 for the above. Been reading and participating in the Tar Sands and Anarchy threads in Off-Topic and that made me think of this thread. Maybe you could jump in lerner in those two.

If Canada plans to develop the tar sand oil even if the keystone pipeline is stopped why is no one focusing on this? If one is concerned about the environment isn't that the real lynchpin that should be focused on?

Aaron... Please check again. Once it was brought to my attention I went in and changed it. PM function should work for you now the same as every other TTB member. If you're still having problems let me know.

Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work and The Essential Engineer: Why Science Alone Will Not Solve Our Global Problems

:) I liked the above. I'm still learning. I'm a LONG way off from having even one 'realization'. Well I mean...there was the bit 3 weeks ago about there not being a dharma at all and how discussion or assorted "practices" is so...hmm...moot. Kinda weird. It's taken years for me to 'get that' even though it's right there in the Buddha's words himself if you pay attention. I wonder why it took so long? Yeah you can say "causes and conditions" but I'm just nosy enough to wonder which specific ones? Any in particular? I suppose it doesn't really matter. It's amazing how...once I finally realized why the Buddha kept saying "there is no dharma" suddenly all of my worrying of whether I got Buddhism *correct* (and the stress that comes with it) vanished in a flash! Now I'm relaxed about it. And to me - everything is "dharma" precisely because there isn't any. Thank god for that!!! No Stressing about it now!! Hallelujah! It's funny how simply by paying close attention some of the things I've always thought were true I realize don't operate that way at all. Very odd. I wonder how different the human race would be if we all decided to turn ourselves into our own personal lab rats and just started watching ourselves? Maybe my cobbled-together "dharma" will be The Lab Rat Sutra... BTW - when I said Xabir has attained nothing I recalled a sutra by the Buddha wherein he quite cheerfully told his students he had attained nothing at all. Cheers to you C.T.

1. The Diamond Sutra Explained 2. The Analects of Confucius 3. The Wealth of Nature: Economics as if Survival Mattered

Interesting quote VM. Would you believe there was a thread a while back on this very thing? Rajiv Malhotra wrote an entire book essentially saying exactly the same thing as Newton Joseph. I read it. It was very, very good and one I had only minor quibbles here and there but for the most part actually agreed with it. I think he (and Dr. Joseph) are right...when it comes to most Christians. I still think there are some Christians or Sufis or Jews whom might have finally dropped the whole "My Religion is the True Religion" thing but the vast majority - including the most liberal and open-minded - have not. Malhotra's book had a lot of documentation to back up his critique. Certainly was an eye-opener and I think you'd probably like it. He is - I suppose not unjustifiably so - seemingly frustrated...I amost want to say at times *cough* bitter...at the unconscious superiority air that is so deeply ingrained in the Abrahamaic faiths that their only response to him at Inter-Faith Conferences to get them to admit there WERE other paths to "God" or the "Absolute" was to say "that's an interesting question" or to simply stay silent and refuse to answer his questions anymore. They froze him out. And these were the inclusive liberals! He also kept trying to get all the Inter-Faith Conferences to change "tolerance' to "mutual respect'. The inclusive liberals froze him out. At EVERY conference. They balked at mutual respect. This has all been documented. Here's what I'm asking next. Why are you so convinced Islam will be the next to fall if Christianity does? I know they acknowledge Jesus as a Prophet but you know how people are about beliefs. They don't like to give them up. When confronted with facts that uncomfortably undermine that belief they'll go to all kinds of lengths to explain why it doesn't apply to them, the "fact" isn't really so (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution anyone?)..etc etc etc. Hell...there's an entire SCIENCE devoted now to examining how utterly irrational people are and how they can easily believe two or more conflicting things at the same time. So why would Islam fall next? Wouldn't they just 'explain it away' and continue evangelizing merrily along asserting There is no God but God and Mohammed is his Prophet?

1. Alias of Bu Shang, one of the Master's prominent disciples. 2. A variant reading says; "He who, in choosing a wife, values her virtue more than her beauty." 1. Ignorant about the rituals. A variant reading of this sentence is "...and what he learns will not be solid." 2. I.e. inferior to him in virtue. 1. This was said about a ruler.

you know what.... I just realized today I've been wrong about Xabir! So very wrong! Alwayson was right! Xabir has attained exactly....nothing!

I do not know. I am certainly no expert in hermeticism nor occult philosophy. I do know Warnock is a strict adherent to pre-modern astrology. That is...sticking only to the planets visible to the naked eye. I've found his mailing list helpful in seeing deeper aspects of astrology or what not.

Fine. Straw man...whatever. I don't care. I doubt anyone else on this board cares about my opinion either. Everyone else is free to think differently from me. I'm not gonna get hung up on 'being right'. If it turns out my opinion was wrong so F'n what? It changes none of the value of the other things that've been said in this thread by all the other participants. It'll only just meant I was wrong in my assessment of Xabir. Again...so F'n what (*yawn*). I'll not be the first to have ever done that. Leave it at that. ********** In any case: I've derailed this thread from it's original topic enough as is. So maybe now's a good time to get back to discussion of the original 'prophecy' should anyone care to do that.

Whatever Alwayson.... I don't find your "realization" convincing in the least either. And your arguments for "how Vajrayana is" or whatever things you've latched onto lately even less so. But you're entitled to your opinions as I am to mine and let's leave it at that. ***Mod OUT****

Yes I think it would be a very fascinating and fruitful one. Yep. I can see that's what you're doing. It's what Buddha was doing, Lao Tzu, Master Hsuan Hua, Master Nan Huai-Chin, Gurunath Siddhanath and Sadhguru too. "Words are poison...but without them you will not get well". I'm actually glad you're here. So far the things you've been typing actually haven't conflicted with anything I've learned about what the Buddha or Lao Tzu taught elsewhere. It's just a bit hard to "hear" you for many people because the hackles come up when you come out swinging against beliefs. Understandable of course. I dunno. I only suggested perhaps exploring another way to get your points across because 1. You aren't saying anything that the sages haven't said elsewhere 2. The "way" you word things sometimes raises (unnecessarily imo which is a darn shame ) others hackles. Perhaps if you worded things differently those whom now dismiss you might be willing to reconsider and listen more closely to what you say? For example: I'd point out how adhering also to Buddhist (same thing with Taoist) memes actually isn't what the Buddha (or Lao Tzu) was teaching either. It sort of "rounds out" the points you are making about the Abrahamaic religions imo. It draws the potential student's attention to the fact this problem of religions goes deeper than they at first might suppose. Which I guess is the point you're really trying to get at in pointing to beliefs. But it's really hard for most people to get that. I've been studying Buddhism for close to 4 years now. And it only hit me about 3 weeks ago the things I posted in that thread above. That's how dang long it's taken for me to even "get it" simply intellectually. Alas...the experiential realization still hasn't hit yet. Before realization a teacher or guide/friend helps liberate. After realization 'original nature' liberates. There's lots of good stuff in your posts. I guess I'm critiquing the *way* you word things. You're like a bull in a china shop lots of times. Sometimes that's good. But other times not. There are people here whom might have been willing to listen to you - even if it pained them - if you found some other interesting or unusual ways to say what's essentially the same messages you're saying now. Trying to convince people to get out of their heads and pay attention is never a bad thing imo.

I certainly don't make such a claim though I am working to see "original nature". However I do believe at least one Taobum (whom alas no longer posts here) has broken through all the skandas and alaya-vinyana to boot. I speak of Xabir. Despite the fact that he has done so (for various reasons I found out when away from TTB) Xabir still often misunderstood where I was coming from when we butted heads in various threads about 'tathagata'. I would have to re-state, re-state, re-state, re-clarify etc in order for him to finally understand where I was coming from. Seeing original nature (ie dharmakaya) is no guarantee that one understands anyone else from reading board posts. It's easier just to ask for clarification and to keep restating if there is still confusion or misunderstanding left. And yep...I agree with your last sentence although for me it is still stuck at the 'belief' stage. Someday it will not be.

This is a good question. However I think any reply to this should be in a new thread and I apologize to VMarco for diverting his original post into off-topic territory. I'll likely post a response to the questions above in a new thread in the Buddhist forum tomorrow.

Zhongyongdaoist... I'm guessing you read Tyson's translation of Agrippa's 3 Books of Occult Philosophy? I'd like to bring a brand new translation to your attention you might find interesting. Apologies if you already have it/read it, etc. Three Books Of Occult Philosophy Book One: A Modern Translation Here's Christopher Warnock's blog post describing this new translation.