Bubbles

GmP- I am aware of very very few philosopher who did walk their talk. That's the difference between philosophy and real wisdom. Philosophy is just that: a talk. Marx is no exception. What makes him special to you is your family history, and I can really understand that. Problem is, if you want to invalidate a philosopher's thought on account on his life, you will end up with very few of them if you except some of ancient Greeks and Latins in Western thought. And would be unfair to their thought, although legit on a human viewpoint. I assume you won't be interested in it, but just in case, I recommend reading this book (http://www.amazon.co...l/dp/0253336805) which explains very well why it may be legit to make a difference between Marx thought and Marxism. May I repeat that I am not marxist? Be well

I can't find the thread but the songs of distant earth (http://thetaobums.co...ofdistantearth/) made similar comment based on his experience with photos of dead high level masters. I wish he was there to comment more on this. Does anyone know if he is still around?

Actually it was an half-joke. I knew I wouldn't be banned for that, it was a slight provocation. I should have made my wording clearer. Thanks for your words anyway. But I personally know a few US citizens (apart from the regulars bums here) who look at most European countries with horror, believing theses countries are mostly filled with people being on a drip of Welfare state funds, incapable of taking responsability for their life etc..Some believe that these countries are applying a marxist program and hearing the word 'socialism' almost get them pass out. To them Marx would the the great Satan in person. But what most people don't realize is that if Marx was still living he would not make much difference between the way european and american gvts from any party (right of left wings) are ruling countries. Lastly, I have reasons to think that there is a lot of difference between Marx thought and Marxism ( the interpretation Lenin constructed based on partial reading of Marx works). Marx would equally condemn USSR-type communism and capitalism as being great source of alienation. Thanks! Interesting link, I will dig it.

Quote: "That which is for me through the medium of money – that for which I can pay (i.e., which money can buy) – that am I myself, the possessor of the money. The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. Money’s properties are my – the possessor’s – properties and essential powers. Thus, what I am and am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness – its deterrent power – is nullified by money. I, according to my individual characteristics, am lame, but money furnishes me with twenty-four feet. Therefore I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and hence its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good. Money, besides, saves me the trouble of being dishonest: I am therefore presumed honest. I am brainless, but money is the real brain of all things and how then should its possessor be brainless? Besides, he can buy clever people for himself, and is he who has power over the clever not more clever than the clever? Do not I, who thanks to money am capable of all that the human heart longs for, possess all human capacities? Does not my money, therefore, transform all my incapacities into their contrary?" Karl Marx- Manuscripts of 1844 I am far from being a marxist but I give this little text to my students every year as food for thought and base for discussion. I know it is a US based board..so if I am banned or cursed for quoting this author here, I say you in advance: it was good being here, although I did spend here more time than I should. Be well everyone . Bye!

Welcome at TTB

For example: Three breaths to start 80% - 70% - 50% Three breaths to finish it means: step 1: 3 full breaths ( = 3 times 100% in-100% out) to start then after the third breath step 2: -inhale fully (100%)- exhale 80%-inhale to the top of your breath capacity (means inhale to add 80% to the 20% you still hold) - exhale 100% -inhale fully (100%)- exhale 70%- inhale to the inhale to the top of your breath capacity (means inhale to add 70% to the 30% you still hold)- exhale 100% -inhale fully (100%)- exhale 50%- inhale to the inhale to the top of your breath capacity (means inhale to add 50% to the 50% you still hold)- exhale 100% you should do the breath percentages only one time then at the end of the meditation step 3: 3 full breaths ( = 3 times 100% in-100% out) to finish

.

The question about psychology Actually it pertains to Nietzsche’s method to read the psychology as the symptom of a specific relation life has with itself. This relation is a value. What makes the value of a value can only be understood when referred to life and specifically the way life asserts itself ( that is called _will to power_). To Nietzsche, there is nothing real outside life feeling itself. No external truth, no objective items, ideas etc.. To Nietzsche it all boils down to life and values. So to analyse values, Nietzsche says one should track them down to their real origins: life and its specific instinctual and physiological organization. This act of tracking is to Nietzsche what psychology as an area of study is. Psychology is an easy way to read and interpret how life manifests itself through values. In the case of Christianity, Nietzsche looks at it not seeking to what extent Christianity is true or false in a traditional sense but seeking what kind of relation of life with itself it expresses and promotes. That’s the reason why he draws a line between the way the Church interprets the Gospels and the other. The first one, because it projects onto an exteriority (I mean outwardly, in an ideology) the existence of a God we should be submitted ourselves to, of moral laws etc, just promotes a negation of life by itself, and express morbidity in both body and psychology.. The second way manifests the healthy relation of life with itself, which is a praxis (not an ideology) by which one is able to support the will to power. The question about the herd Because there is nothing outside life and the ways life seeks asserting itself (morbidly or healthily), there is no way the herd can be saved. Because what makes an herd an herd is that individuals negate their individuality, their individual life, by submitting themselves to external ideology, which is always a way life represses itself. This ideology promotes for eg, equality of rights (democracy), when life is inherently unequal, material comfort that dazes, stupefy and weakens life when life should be instead seeking intensity in suffering and joy etc.. This is to Nietzsche a sign of nihilism i-e life self-negation and nihilism permeates our entire civilization. Nietzsche thinks there is no easy solution to that. When the ultimate stage of nihilism will be crossed, right conditions will be set to see the emergence of superman. This superman is the model of what could save humanity/life from its erring way. Supermen are type of men in which life endures itself to the highest intensity and can therefore go through intense suffering and joy without trying to escape from it ( could we endure and bear the eternal recurrence of universe and events without trying to escape? ) and is capable of great achievements artistically etc.. but first and foremost by resetting life values from nihilistic to affirmative . Being a superman requires specific education. If supermen are enough in number they can influence the herd at distance (at distance from political power) through the resetting of values (that will permeate the culture and transform it) but always in ways the herd can’t identify –otherwise they will resist. This is what Jesus did but his resetting of values has been corrupted by the priests who dominated and created the Church. That’s why there is no real contradiction between putting oneself at distance from the herd and at the same time living in the middle of them (what you called an apparent conventional life). All this involves a political project that Nietzsche only sketched. What is sure is that being a superman has nothing to do with Darwinian sociology (survival of the fittest etc) nor political domination. Nietzsche posits clearly that the higher type a man, the less he is likely to succeed in a herd society. BTW Nietzsche saw in the development of Buddhism in the West as a symptom of nihilism because of the anti-suffering ideology it is based on ( see beyond good and evil §202)

That's interesting, Marblehead, I would be happy to read it. Would you mind posting it here or in your Personal Practice Journal if you have one? Thanks

Nietzsche condemned Christianity- the church- and all the ideological instruments of mass control it used. These instruments were made up by transforming the Gospels message ( which is about how to live so that life who be freed) into morality and life contempt. The following extract is very clear about it. Snap judgements are always off the mark. Taken from Antichrist: Chap 33: In the whole psychology of the “Gospels” the concepts of guilt and punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward. “Sin,” which means anything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished—this is precisely the “glad tidings.” Eternal bliss is not merely promised, nor is it bound up with conditions: it is conceived as the only reality—what remains consists merely of signs useful in speaking of it. The results of such a point of view project themselves into a new way of life, the special evangelical way of life. It is not a “belief” that marks off the Christian; he is distinguished by a different mode of action; he acts differently. He offers no resistance, either by word or in his heart, to those who stand against him. He draws no distinction between strangers and countrymen, Jews and Gentiles (“neighbour,” of course, means fellow-believer, Jew). He is angry with no one, and he despises no one. He neither appeals to the courts of justice nor heeds their mandates (“Swear not at all”) (Matthew v, 34) He never under any circumstances divorces his wife, even when he has proofs of her infidelity.—And under all of this is one principle; all of it arises from one instinct.— The life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of life—and so was his death.... He no longer needed any formula or ritual in his relations with God—not even prayer. He had rejected the whole of the Jewish doctrine of repentance and atonement; he knew that it was only by a way of life that one could feel one’s self “divine,” “blessed,” “evangelical,” a “child of God.” Not by “repentance,” not by “prayer and forgiveness” is the way to God: only the Gospel way leads to God—it is itself “God!”—What the Gospels abolished was the Judaism in the concepts of “sin,” “forgiveness of sin,” “faith,” “salvation through faith”—the whole ecclesiastical dogma of the Jews was denied by the “glad tidings.” The deep instinct which prompts the Christian how to live so that he will feel that he is “in heaven” and is “immortal,” despite many reasons for feeling that he is not “in heaven”: this is the only psychological reality in “salvation.”—A new way of life, not a new faith.... Chap 34 If I understand anything at all about this great symbolist, it is this: that he regarded only subjective realities as realities, as “truths” —that he saw everything else, everything natural, temporal, spatial and historical, merely as signs, as materials for parables. The concept of “the Son of God” does not connote a concrete person in history, an isolated and definite individual, but an “eternal” fact, a psychological symbol set free from the concept of time. The same thing is true, and in the highest sense, of the God of this typical symbolist, of the “kingdom of God,” and of the “sonship of God.” Nothing could be more un-Christian than the crude ecclesiastical notions of God as a person, of a “kingdom of God” that is to come, of a “kingdom of heaven” beyond, and of a “son of God” as the second person of the Trinity. All this—if I may be forgiven the phrase—is like thrusting one’s fist into the eye (and what an eye!) of the Gospels: a disrespect for symbols amounting to world-historical cynicism.... But it is nevertheless obvious enough what is meant by the symbols “Father” and “Son”—not, of course, to every one—: the word “Son” expresses entrance into the feeling that there is a general transformation of all things (beatitude), and “Father” expresses that feeling itself—the sensation of eternity and of perfection.—I am ashamed to remind you of what the church has made of this symbolism: has it not set an Amphitryon story at the threshold of the Christian “faith”? And a dogma of “immaculate conception” for good measure?... And thereby it has robbed conception of its immaculateness— The “kingdom of heaven” is a state of the heart—not something to come “beyond the world” or “after death.” The whole idea of natural death is absent from the Gospels: death is not a bridge, not a passing; it is absent because it belongs to a quite different, a merely apparent world, useful only as a symbol. The “hour of death” is not a Christian idea—“hours,” time, the physical life and its crises have no existence for the bearer of “glad tidings.”... The “kingdom of God” is not something that men wait for: it had no yesterday and no day after tomorrow, it is not going to come at a “millennium”—it is an experience of the heart, it is everywhere and it is nowhere.... Chap 35 This “bearer of glad tidings” died as he lived and taught—not to “save mankind,” but to show mankind how to live. It was a way of life that he bequeathed to man: his demeanour before the judges, before the officers, before his accusers—his demeanour on the cross. He does not resist; he does not defend his rights; he makes no effort to ward off the most extreme penalty—more, he invites it.... And he prays, suffers and loves with those, in those, who do him evil.... Not to defend one’s self,not to show anger, not to lay blames.... On the contrary, to submit even to the Evil One—to love him....

The Wind, One Brilliant Day by Antonio Machado The wind, one brilliant day, called to my soul with an odor of jasmine. "In return for the odor of my jasmine, I'd like all the odor of your roses." "I have no roses; all the flowers in my garden are dead." "Well then, I'll take the withered petals and the yellow leaves and the waters of the fountain." the wind left. And I wept. And I said to myself: "What have you done with the garden that was entrusted to you?" Translated by Robert Bly

yada yada, Vmarco your quotes and thinking are just spinning around Please study, ponder and question your own thinking more and talk less. Be a true taoist Edited: I am out of this one too Edited 2: Sorry Marblehead Edited 3 : Ok, I come back just just a little

Feel free to make any meaningful contributions to the thread. I am out of it. Edited for spelling

These are gratuitous comments and vague generalizations given that you haven’t carefully read Meister Eckhart and don’t want to. The same about "belief". A throughout analysis of what belief actually is would show that there are different types of beliefs and that no functional human mind could go without (I am quite sure you believe your car is outside when you take your car keys before going out your house/apartment; and if you found your car, your belief was true). So what belief are we talking about here when it comes to our present discussion? All this things are not as simple as sweeping generalizations make them appear. The answer you made to Aaron is all is needed to understand the problem. When you use quotes to support your viewpoint, you strip out the context. You expect people to take them as they are: an illustration of your opinion. So your opinion stands alone here and by itself, the quotes are just here to flower the scene. They can’t give it support. In the same way, when you use quotes (without context and throughout analysis of them) to disprove a point, do you realize that this also cancel the impact of quote in the refutation you want to make? If you take 1 Cor 13:7 out of context, without any careful study of Paul language in the original greek, in order to show that Christian love (from which current?) is only conditional love, you are showing nothing. You are just sharing a personal subjective opinion about what you believe Christian love to be. And it is the same with any text from any spiritual or philosophical tradition you are using. This is the reason why I seldom engage in any debate at TTB about philosophical points although there are plethora of occasions. I know what it takes to be objective, precise and honest when talking about something. It takes hours of work and pondering. When people talk about practice, it is the same. Either you know what you are talking about because you have actually put hours in it, either it is empty talk.

If you are an impersonal heart centered individual, that's marvellous. But you should care a little more about the way your mind operates because it doesn't operate with the same impersonality your heart does. I mean: your point about unquestioned beliefs hindering spirituality is perfect by itself, I can't agree more. and actually all your 1300 posts sum up in that statement. But when you feel the need to prove or illustrate your point, you could be more careful about intellectual objectivity. Some of the things you say about for eg Descartes, Christianity etc are simply not true because they are based on intellectual shortcuts, superficial readings and have strong flavors of being bias based. What I am saying is you could also care about objectivity since you are here as a standard bearer of truth. Being impersonal doesn't allow anyone to say seriously that NYC is in South Dakota. In the same way, it is not serious to say that Christianity can't be a valid path to experience truth. Since you know about religion, you also know that Christianity is just a general label for a diversity of doctrines and that there can be a world of difference between some Pentecostalism currents and Orthodoxy. If you care to have a more in depth look you will find enlightened Christian people : read Meister Eckhart for eg. It would be the same with some Islamic, Jewish, Hindu mystics. And they were often persecuted by the religious institutions for the very reason they went beyond blind faith and dived into experience of Truth within their own religious path. And this is not an inter-faith statement. Because inter-faith is about finding ways to mentally and doctrinally bridge systems . The fact that you seem to be strongly reluctant to impersonally have a look into this should make you wonder about the real openness of your mind. Krishnamurti 's and Osho's statements about belief systems can also be occasions of blind faith. Krishnamurti followers are just that: followers and they are equally dangerous as Christians. Truth can't be served this way. Now, since you are here by popular demand, I have nothing more to say. Nothing beats popular demand in democracy.

I am not Christian so your post is completely off the mark. I don't proslytize religious beliefs My daily job involves me studying philosophy, theology etc..so I am paid to be able to think within various standpoints without believing to any. Your posts are not filled with facts but with sundry quotes and the same old repetitive ideas as Cat pointed out and as everyone who run a search in your 1300 posts will find. Maybe you should consider open a spiritual center and give (online for eg) satsangs so that all the people interested could join you. I am sure you will be allowed to advertize here from time to time. You may try again later Vmarco, if you succeed in stepping out of your mental obsessions.

Thanks! yes, it has been released in 2009. Out of stock on amazon. (http://www.amazon.com/Chen-Village-Xiaowang/dp/B002FQ8RYS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1355948940&sr=8-2&keywords=chen+village ) Will wait.

Found in Two Realities - Jesus and Buddha as Brothers thread post# 26 And then Vmarco’s answer : ( I put in bold what is interesting) 1. Everyone can see how you choose to act here at TTB. This is just an example of how you interact with people you suspect to threaten your agenda. You are attacking people and belittling them. So it is not true that you have never belittled anyone here. 2. More than that, I have on several occasions reminded you that your quotes were mostly out of context, displayed with erroneous interpretations because you are just compiling them to fit your biased point against what you think to be “religion”. This lack of intellectual integrity is far under what your models had accomplished in this regard. Great enlightened Tibetan Buddhists had superior intellectual skills. 3. And finally, should I remember you that, although it is all fine if you believe you are enlightened, no one here asked you to be your disciple so you have no real legitimacy to display what you believe to be your “compassional” way of treating others here. Good for you if you believe you are Tilopa, but no one here believes he is Naropa. So no one comes here to endure your aggressiveness. 4. So once again, as I have already done it in the past, I urge you to be consistent with your own statement which I will quote here again and put the important passage in bold for the sake of clarity:

I have just seen your post. I am biased so won't be of real help. I have bought it and find it useful and inspirational but that's because I like Chen Taijiquan and won't miss a book from Chen Xiaowang. Now, you should know that the most lenghty part of the book is due to his german disciple's commentary of his treatise. There are some technical points but it is a general overview.

This is a shot in the dark. As I have already said it to you several times (an example of it post #7 http://thetaobums.co...ty/#entry293264 and post # 14 http://thetaobums.co...rco#entry296791) before criticizing something, be sure to study it. Otherwise instead of making a sound point; you are just exposing your incompetence and plain ignorance of the subject ( here the Christian love).

.

.

Hi Jetsun, I am not saying I am in anyway more advanced than you on the path. So the following are just my two cents based on what I have experienced. I agree that one could get the impression that the blind is trying to give advice to the blind. But nevermind, and sorry if you don't find my post relevant. Just let me know in a way or another. You seem to be trapped in an over psychological intellectualization of your situation. So, I would say drop all your questions about yourself, and about the relation you should have to what you have lived.Because your internal turmoil maintains the separation between you and your past and takes you away from youself, and take away your energy. I mean the past is done now. So, just take it as yours, because it is yours, and this means take full responsability for what you have lived: acknowledge it as being part of your life, a part of your life as important as any other part, but not more. If there is moral/mental pain or suffering associated with this, take it also. Take all of it as being part of you. Because you can't avoid them anyway. This means you should completely accept the facts ( including your present suffering) because they are unavoidably part of you/your life. And then just decide to forget it. I don't mean to forget as a contrary of recalling, but forget it in the sense Nietzsche would have used the word: by moving on, allowing life to digest and select what is useful to her/you as as living being. But, IMHO, this can't really be done if you don't pull out your thinking from this psychological internal drama you are trapped in. Those kind of ruminations are very detrimental to spiritual life because they hold you back from going further. The Christians would say: these ruminations hold you in the state of a psychological human being and prevent you from stepping into the state of a spiritual human being because they are just looping thoughts associated with emotions. These thoughts don't help you in any way. Actually they are part of the problem. So to shut up your thoughts on this, you must engage in a kind of moment-to-moment mindfullness practice rooted into body work. So my wild guess is that: you don't have enough daily body-mind practice. Am I right? I found body-mind practice tremendously helpful deflating the useless thinking and creating a internal presence. Not only that, but you may sooner or later find that most of your turmoil has disappeared and that so you may reconcile yourself with some previously painful parts of your life without consciously knowing it being done: you may be able to look at them as ended stories. This sense of internal presence may then allow you to dig deeper and in a more skilfull way into the areas of yourself where work needs to be done, but not in a way that would separate you from yourself and create another drama. Take up anything that can suit you: taijiquan, yoga, or just zhan zhuang. And, if you can, add also some manual labor that can serves you as a rooting practice in both physical reality and the eternal part of time, like carthusian monks do. Hope it helps a litlle, if not just discard it and let me know. PS: to do the internal work the way you are trying to do it ( I mean by introspection), my opinion is that a teacher is needed , but if you don't have any and if your suffering is quite unbearable, you may seek temporarily professional advice just to help you seeing more clearly and putting order into your thoughts so that you can move on. Edited for spelling as far as I could

Hi K, talking about the Middle Heaven Bagua, you wrote: From what I understood, this arrangement (actually there are two versions of it) is not really rooted in Hetu nor Luoshu. So it can't deliver anything meaningful in any practice.

You are perhaps referring to the Zhong Tian Bagua ( Middle Heaven arrangement). It is supposed to be in the lost version of Yijing (named Gui Cang). I was taught that it is useless and attributed to Huang Di to make it more legit because pre Heaven was already attributed to Fu Xi and post Heaven to Weng Wang... It doesn't look like Crowley's arrangement.. Let's wait for viator's picture.