Otis

No offense to Observer, but this is what I call the "Parental Fallacy". That is: the belief that if you are not actively saying "no" to your own instincts and functions, that they will wander off on you, and start doing nefarious naughty things. From that reasoning, we arrive at the conclusion: I can't accept all these thoughts and instincts, because if I were to DO THEM, they would get me in trouble. But, of course, there's a huge gap between "accepting a thought or instinct", and actually "doing the action". We always have competing desires and interests, which help us find compromises, rather than being forced to act on each whim. Our culture contains the myth that "no" must form the basis for raising children (or ourselves), whereas it's also possible (if a lot more difficult) for "yes" to do the trick. We don't have to deny or judge any of reality (including ourselves), in order to move forward with great positivity. Encourage a path of light, rather than denounce darkness. In fact, "no" ultimately just gets in the way, creates the imprisonment that we later have to shed to find freedom. IME, if I give my desires, thoughts, creativity, etc. room to play without judgment, then they all mature on their own. After all, they are just part of the greater me, no less than "I" am. The model of growth that resonates the best with me, is that of a plant. The plant doesn't have to figure it out. It doesn't have to choose this over that, or say "the petals are good, but stamen is bad". It just lives and grows, period. IME, my organism's growth is much closer to the model of a plant, then to the model of a parent trying to teach a child to be obedient.

Beautiful share Ulises, thanks! The big problem with "self-improvement": it means the "I" (i.e. the ego) is going to start changing things about "me". But my need for control is the problem to begin with, so any amount of self-improvement just strengthens the one thing I need to surrender: "me". If however, "I" learn to accept all the other qualities about me, just as I'm learning to accept the rest of the world, then "I" do not need to change anything. "I" just need to get out of the way, and enjoy the ride (i.e. the flow from within which there is no distinction between "me" and life). IME, the flow itself manages all the changing, growing and maturing that "I" could never achieve on my own. The more "I" am out of the way (i.e. the more I accept everything), the faster the growth.

This is how I would describe "higher self": The organism of the human being can be divided, conceptually, into many different parts. Organs, systems, central vs. peripheral nervous systems, thought, inspiration, creativity, emotion, etc. All of those parts, functioning together, form my "higher self". But it is not "I". "I" am my "lower self", that is: merely one small part of the organism. "I" am a reflective action, trying to view myself, trying to define myself, trying to defend myself, all arising from a function, or cluster of functions, in the brain. "I" am this perspective of self which we call ego. The perspective is from within one function of the brain, looking at other functions of the brain, as if they were something separate from me. From that perspective, I mistakenly view "right vs. wrong" drives, thoughts, desires, pain, etc. But that's just one element of the greater self misapprehending 1. itself as the real self, and the 2. other elements as some kind of alien invaders. Instead, if "I" realize that it is not "my" job to decide what is wrong or right, but just to pay attention, then "I" can get out of the way, and the greater self can re-assume control of the organism, and of the life. As long as "I" try to act as a puppeteer, trying to decide for the organism, then I am merely inhibiting the proper function of the greater self. But if I am willing to get out of the way, to not decide, to forget knowing, judging, and conceptualizing (none of which functions rely on "me"), then IME the greater organism takes over on its own, and starts living ITS life, without "my" conscious involvement. The greater self opens up like an umbrella, suddenly working as one powerful entity, rather than just a cluster of closed umbrella parts. Of course, this "greater self" does not emerge first as a full-fledged, super-wise being, but as an infant, that has been neglected all these years, as my "lower self" has insisted on controlling as much as it could. So the "I" also needs to be patient, and accept the clumsiness that happens when "I" get out of the way. If I can be still in my egoism, and allow the clumsiness, then IME the greater self has a much shorter learning curve then "I" ever had, and its genius soon makes itself known.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at, above.

Personally, I've found that years of practice makes me a little bit of an oddball. It actually draws women to me, at first, because they recognize something that they are not finding in most of the men they meet (I've been told I was "other-worldly"). But these same women are also used to the games, posturing and flattery that they receive from men who are used to using deception and illusion to get their ways. But I'm not doing that: little boasting or flattery, and I'm being honest about what's actually happening in my life. I think that's my best way of connecting to women, but I think sometimes it seems to them like I'm not interested, because I'm not falling over myself. I'm not giving them "the signs", because I just want to know them as a person, rather than try to create (or fulfill) a fantasy. That doesn't (necessarily) mean my approach is wrong, but it just means I will only connect to women who are interested in going deeper and more honest, right from the start. Quality, rather than quantity. Maybe your conversation about Taoism helps weed out those who are afraid of depth.

Well said. What you're describing matches my own experience and realization.

Dear friends, We've all heard the phrase many times: "we are all already enlightened". Sounds good, but it does seem to be in contradiction to almost everything else I hear about enlightenment: attainment, lifetimes of refinement, etc. Or is it? Help me out guys. What does that phrase mean, and do you think it's a valid point? If it is valid, then how does that concept shape your path and your actions?

Sweet. Yes. I've fallen into the trap, at times, when things are going so well, and change is happening so quickly; then I think: "ah, I'm set, the universe really likes me." Until, of course, I stumble on the bump that I had leapt nimbly over, 1000X before. And suddenly, it's impersonal again. It has nothing to do with me being favored by the Tao. It only has to do with: was I paying attention? Was I taking care? Suzuki Roshi supposedly wrote: "There are no enlightened people, only enlightened activity." In other words: it's impersonal, like the rose bush.

The women I know despise violence in men. They love bravery, but hate violence, even traces of it.

Excellent! I always love these inter-species friendship stories. I don't know how much they reflect the norm, but I bet it happens more often than we know. Take away immediate threat and competition, or the need to kill another animal for food, and what's left? Why not compassion? I also love watching animals play, to see how much they love fun.

Isn't this an "ideology of exclusivity"?

Of course, "God" is just a metaphor, so "God is inside of us" is also just a metaphor. If one is inclined to be attracted to the metaphor of God, then why not conceptually bring God back into us? After all, non-dual realization is that "life is not outside of me". Nor is "the world" outside of me. So why should "the Source" be? The externalization of God/Tao/Source continues to leave the individual in victimhood, alienated from the world. It also gives rise to fundamentalism (i.e. "my experience of God is actually how/who God is"). I think Frantzis' point is to reduce the distinctions within spiritual experience, something I think we can all learn from. And it's to take responsibility for our experience of the transcendent. The more we try to distinguish "emptiness" vs. "Buddhahood" vs. "luminosity", etc., the more we're mucking about in hearsay and presumption (and fundamentalism!). All I can ever possibly know is "the experience of emptiness", not "emptiness" itself. So why insist on distinctions that I can never truly know?

Of course, "God" is just a metaphor, so "God is inside of us" is also just a metaphor. If one is inclined to be attracted to the metaphor of God, then why not conceptually bring God back into us? After all, non-dual realization is that "life is not outside of me". Nor is "the world" outside of me. So why should "the Source" be? The externalization of God/Tao/Source continues to leave the individual in victimhood, alienated from the world. It also gives rise to fundamentalism (i.e. "my experience of God is actually how/who God is"). I think Frantzis' point is to reduce the distinctions within spiritual experience, something I think we can all learn from. And it's to take responsibility for our experience of the transcendent. The more we try to distinguish "emptiness" vs. "Buddhahood" vs. "luminosity", etc., the more we're mucking about in hearsay and presumption (and fundamentalism!). All I can ever possibly know is "the experience of emptiness", not "emptiness" itself. So why insist on distinctions that I can never truly know?

I've made my point; good luck to you.

A good example. As a matter of fact, I do believe that we have the drive to violence (if not killing per se). And I don't think there's anything unhealthy about it. Certainly I would not try to reduce or extinguish that drive in me. My assumption is that there is nothing that we were born with (other than maybe the appendix) that does not serve some purpose. My answer to the "drive toward violence" is the same as to the "drive toward sex": make friends with the forces that work within me. Do not judge them, or think that I know better than them. Just make friends, so that when they do exert their forces upon my consciousness, I can be simultaneously in them, and in observance of them. Of course being friends with my sex drive does not mean capitulating to it, whenever it becomes activated. That's a bully/victim relationship, not one between friends. But being a disciplinarian who decides that this part of me is "good and desirable" while that part is "bad and unhealthy"; that doesn't sound like a path of growth, either. Because then the self-image rules the self. But it is precisely the self-image which obscures the self, (and the growth and discovery of the self). So the more determined I am to be a certain way, the less free I am to be who I actually am. And who I am right now is always the person I have to grow from. If I accept where I am (including my drives), then I will grow from this place. But if I am willing and trying myself toward being something else, then I will be building a facade of habits over the ones I want to change. If I accept the habits that are right here, right now, then I find that the appetites themselves want to find healthiness. My desires are just functions of my body, and they want to be healthy, just like "I" do. It is only "my" (i.e. my ego/habit's) interference, which prevents them from finding dynamic balance for themselves. "I" am just a function which cannot micro-manage other functions well, so when I try, I screw them up. Every part of my organism desires balance, and it is only my (ego/habit's) history of interference and neglect which has kept those parts from learning that balance. That "me" which wills change is only one small piece of the greater self, and it is absolutely not the primary or authoritative piece. When I put it above the other parts of me, it argues from a very narrow perspective: its conditioning. However, when I make that "me" a student to my other parts, when I really let myself listen to my body and my brain, I recognize that all their neuroses are "my" fault. It is my (ego/habit's) mis-functioning that has warped my other faculties: my senses and my energies. When I think of "finding the original nature", I usually think about what does a human being need, before he has language? In history, we needed, above all else: the ability to escape, the ability to find food and water, the ability to kill if necessary, and the ability to have sex. This is the core of what it means to be human. I think it is precisely man's insistence that he is other than an animal, which leads to his unhappiness. We are (social) animals, with individual needs, who join together into a society in which we all gain somewhat by not always focusing on our own needs. We choose not to follow every drive, in order to get along with others, but it still doesn't make that drive "wrong". So yes, there's a lot of reason to change our relationship with our drives, get to be friends with them, so they can include the participation of all the functions. But just like it doesn't make sense for us to allow our drives to take over, I don't think it makes sense for us to try to take them over, either. "We", like they, are merely functions of the greater self (the body).

I'm no sexual master either, but when you write that you don't think that the sex drive is "healthy", it makes me shake my head in wonder. We are reproduction machines. Every other function serves to carry us to reproduction. How could the drive not be "healthy", when it's the cornerstone of our evolution? Of course drives are contaminated by conditioning, but that doesn't make the drive unhealthy, just confused. Hunger and thirst can be contaminated, of course, but are absolutely necessary. Isn't the point to get the ego out of your nature's way? What could be more egoic than trying to conquer your own drives (which is just an expression of your nature)? Why are those drives "unhealthy" but the need to overcome them is "healthy"? You also wrote about a great deal of guilt and shame, feeling "out of control and pretty worthless". Are you sure those feelings are not what's behind your evaluation of the sex drive?

I wouldn't assume that the yin methods are not right for you, just because you get a chill afterwards. I went through a period of several months in which my practice left me with intense shivers. But I learned to relax during the shiver, and realized how useful it is. And soon, the phase ended, and I ended up with more endemic heat than before. So it may just be part of the process, not necessarily a sign that something is wrong. Personally, I love practicing in the steam room or sauna, so there is as little tension in my body, as possible. And I get great deep stretches there, as well.

I've never had a collarbone break, so I cannot speak directly to that. However, I do have the following contrarian advice: don't immobilize for any longer than necessary. The immobilization is necessary for when you cannot be aware all the time. But whenever you have the chance to take time and be gently aware of the injured parts, I would engage them (lovingly, kindly, like an injured child) as soon as possible. Just enough activation to feel the pain, feel the dynamics of the injury, and to get blood into the area. Over time, more and more activity. Immobilization itself does not lead to healing, just to prevention of re-injury.

My dad is a neuro-psychology of consciousness professor. One of his conferences this year included an analysis on the outcome of non-dual meditation practices. He told me that the data does, indeed, support this thread's OP; meditation can make you dull! Respondents in the study complained that they were detached from life, disinterested in relationships, not all that happy, and often wished they could go back to their previous way of connecting. Of course I don't think this suggests that all meditation is bad, but I think it's worthwhile considering the data, and how not to go down the same path. Personally, most of my practices are movement practices, and very few have anything to do with discipline. They are joyful expressions, or at least yummy stretches. But even then, I still feel the need for adventurous and truly playful practices in my repertoire, because they, more than anything, bring out the shine.

Good topic, everyone! Absolutely agreed that physical beauty is only one of the factors needed for attraction. If a woman is beautiful, but shows no interest in me, I get over being attracted to her very quickly. A woman who really shows love for me (as opposed to just wanting to own me), is the most attractive woman possible. Heavier women are not always as pleasing to the eye, but can be far more attractive to the touch! With some voluptuous women, their whole bodies feel like they're made up of breasts, yum. Tight, muscular yoga women look great in tights, but tend to feel like men. Libido excitement is highly correlated with newness. The other attractions are highly correlated with familiarity. Women who date my friends are automatically off my list, no matter how beautiful or sexy. I don't even harbor secret desire for them. Women who are talented (singing, playing instruments, etc.) get lots of bonus attraction points from me. Being a joyful, unafraid dancer is almost a requirement. Doesn't matter how great the face, if it's scowling. A great smile is a wonderful thing!

Quantum Immortality.

Certainly, it would be inaccurate to say "all forms of GM are bad". But I think it would be totally accurate to say: "we really don't know what we're doing". There is one scientific hypothesis of how the AIDS epidemic started, that has really changed my "technology is good" assumption. That hypothesis is that someone received, in an experimental surgery, a primate heart valve that was contaminated with the Chimp version of HIV. Because their immune system was so reduced by drugs, the previously ape-only disease was able to cross over into the human host. If that hypothesis is right, then we have to be a lot more careful, then I think we realize. No one would guess that an experimental heart valve transplant would lead to the deaths of millions and millions of people. Who would say: "don't try that; it might be dangerous"? And so, too, with GM crops. I don't know their danger, but I didn't previously know the danger of trans fat, or global warming. We are changing the face of the planet (and our food supply), with precious little insight into what those changes will create.

How so?