gatito

---

Oh dear I'd no intention of posting here again and then I happened upon this thread. Yes - I do have experience of biocircuits and I would strongly advise against: - Using aluminum (or lead solder) or any other toxic metal in biocircuits for reasons that should be obvious. If I was going to make copper biocircuits, I'd use pure copper (audio wire), silver or gold wire and organic unbleached cotton insulation – very expensive wire. No way would I use water pipes or ordinary electrical copper wire due to their impurity content. I have silk biocircuits which I purchased many years ago and do not use nowadays because I consider that they probably also contain contaminants. If I was going to construct silk biocircuits, I'd use unbleached organic silk and again sheath them in unbleached organic cotton. I would also advise strongly against employing a circuit involving someone else and/or sharing someone else's biocircuits. Read Biocircuits: Amazing New Tools for Energy Health by Leslie Patten for more detail. So, what are some alternatives for balancing energy, if you can't get hold of the pure mertals, silk and cotton needed? : - Teach yourself Tai Chi with Dr Yang (Jwing-Ming)'s outstanding Tai Chi for Beginners. Use Master Lam (Kam Chuen)'s book The Way of Energy and the Stand Still, Be Fit videos to learn the Eight Brocades and Zhan Zhuang. Stand Still, Be Fit videos here: - www.youtube.com/channel/UCH_ecCMHqqpBazYiUv3Sg8Q NB: - A further caveat – if you seek instruction from Master Lam or one of his students in person do not participate in the sharing of energy that often takes place at the end of a class for the same reasons that you should not share biocircuits or get into circuits involving someone else (and/or sleep around).

Today I walked through the spiritual marketplace. I will not go there again. ______________________________________ Today I walked through the spiritual marketplace, And heard 10,000 hawkers hawking, 10,000 children teaching, And 20% held forth as 100. So many voices, So full of authority, Young and old, Certain and assertive. I brought my Beloved with me, But She could not bear the din, And ran from that place, Staring back, tearfully. I could not hear, Amidst the din and clamour, Her sobbing whisper, “My Own, leave this place, And follow me Home.” gardenofthebeloved.com/hawkershawking.html

Becoming a “pro”, In matters of The Heart, Is the beginning of corruption. _________________________________________ I can't imagine a broken-hearted soul, Coming to me for Love, And my saying, "Sure. Give me a buck." I can't imagine one sick and suffering, Coming to me for Healing, And my saying, "Sure. Give me a buck." I can't imagine one wide-eyed with Wonder, Asking to explore Awe together, And my saying, "Sure. Give me a buck." Becoming a “pro”, In matters of The Heart, Is the beginning of corruption. Chuck Surface http://www.gardenofthebeloved.com/moneyforlove.html www.gardenofthebeloved.com/moneyforlove.html

^^^ Very, very, very good!

There is a story about a a group of friends who were learning to meditate and one of them said that s/he found it impossible because s/he was living next to a noisy road. A number of people made various helpful suggestions regarding fitting triple glazing, using earplugs, strengthening concentration etc., etc. Do you know what the best answer was 3bob?

Sorry, but I'm out of here Edit for the record: - Although he managed to delete the last one before I could capture it in a quote, some of the grossly abusive memes posted by Simple_Jack that were reported by me prior to this appalling "moderation" can be seen here: - http://thetaobums.com/topic/34139-buddhist-reason-split-and-pit/#entry532453 thetaobums.com/topic/34139-buddhist-reason-split-and-pit/#entry532453 The correct way to have handled this would have been for dawei to have sent me a PM inviting me to discuss his ongoing personal issues with me, especially after a previous intervention which led to him offering me what was clearly an insincere apology.

As I said dawei I'm finished with this - if others wish to continue, I'm entirely happy to let them get on with it Thanks for the PS

Thanks dawei I'm finished with this

Again, tangential and entirely irrelevant. The point is that: - Go ahead and refute that End of thread

Ah, the meaning of words - there cannot, by definitiion, be two or more non-dualities - end of! - full stop! The Buddha was also quite specific about this at Kalama (apparently ), which is fortunate because I'm sure that the vast majority of practicing Buddhist's would place no reliance on any of Malcolm Smiths wavering opinions especially if they witness the shambles of the Dharma Wheel However, as I said I find it impossible to refute his stance on polemics

That's something that you regularly trot out but while it's axiomatically correct, it's also totally irellevant . However, it does illustrate the absence of basic reasoning/debating skills (which is what this threads all about - so thanks for that ) And why, especially as a practicing Buddhist, should I not have my say about Buddhism?

No Incorrect What he said about polemics was: - "And polemics are useful for nothing but passing the time, verbal flatulence for the most part." I'm struggling to find a valid counterargument to that

Yes, I can - but you'd have to convince me that it wouldn't be a waste of my time So, Malcolm constantly changes his position - let me kmow if he ever figures it out. In the meantime, remind me what he said about polemics Excellent - dualistic non-duality That could present a bit of a dilemma for anyone who isn't Self-realised I guess that's the issue with polemics

Speaking to me, love? Sorry, not interested.

Je t'en prie

Even someone with nothing more than a rudimentary understanding of non-duality would know that non-duality (advaita) is not oneness. So, it's clear that your similarly clueless about the Buddha's teachings Jeff Furthermore, appeals to authority by quoting sutras that you don't even understand is a complete waste of time, as Malcolm Smith so succinctly pointed out. Have a good day

I'm not offended Simple_Jack, I realise that you haven't got a clue about the Buddha's teachings.

Indeed - that's the first time that I find myself concurring wholeheartedly with Malcolm Smith. It's a pity that, in the process of coming to this realisation, he fathered so many foolish sons. You can always find the roots of violence in toxic parenting, whether it is by the actual parents or by substitute parents, which can also include the child's peer group. teachers and religious leaders. And by religion, I mean dogma; which is always dualistic and always false because the Truth cannot be articulated. It can only be approximated in successive iterations, until all iterations of dogma and stories are dropped in the undeniable presence of the Truth, which is not two (and even that is saying too much).

http://youtu.be/EuhzwfRb6ak

Lovely fool - Jack Savoretti

It means none of these things. Awareness (aka Consciousness0 is the subject of all objects. The best definition of it that I've ever come across is "that which is reading these words" If you want to explore consciousness further you might start with trying out the Headless Way experiments of Douglas Harding - don't get caught up in anything else there though (As for "mind" - that's simply the current thought appearing to consciousness )

All the Buddhists I know (including my wife) are sorted happy people - but they do actively practice Mindfulness (Jon Kabat-Zinn style) and Metta along with Right Action. That holy trinity seems to be all that's needed Incidentally, it doesn't seem to be as effective in uncovering the intrinsic Happiness if any of the three are missing

Anyone reading this thread should be aware that Goenka Viipassana retreats are a brainwashing cult indocrination system. Here's something to get you started: - http://youtu.be/N6Rj8SDUI7Q

That makes sense from what I've seen. Debate can be useful as a tool for self inquiry (turning back the false beliefs upon themselves) but when there's a seeker "debating" from a merely intellectual (i.e. intrinsically dualistic) standpoint, it goes nowhere and descends into a childish argument about whose belief system is best because that seeker has neither realised the end-point of the path nor is s/he open to the understanding that whatever belief system being is being espoused is nothing more than an approximation and a potentially useful pointer, whose usefulness is destroyed as soon as it's adopted as a belief system. What I see in internet "buddhism" usually reminds me of the playground dynamic of "my dad can beat-up your dad", "my dad's car's bigger/faster than your dad's car", etc. However, I've also come across it in real world "buddhism" (and neoadvaita) and it seems to be a natural consequence of the establishment of hierarchical organisations and groups. It therefore becomes as pointless an excercise as the endless MoPai arguments. So, I question the entire premise behind "debate" it would be better viewed as a herlpful discussion than as the adverserial confrontation that seems to be touted as beneficial for the seeker. Of course, a helpful discussion can only tale place from the premise that neither party is interested in the intrinsic violence of attempting to convert the other to a mere intellectual belief system.