Nikolai1

When Tibetan Ice said of Daoism that 'it seems that Daoism is concerned more with becoming, with mastering, with elevating and accomplishing rather than surrender' he was talking about one expression of the religion, but i think it is still a legitimate comment about many Daoists. Although it seems confusing at first glance, the acquisition of power and mastery is as much a dissolution of the ego as renunciation. Through increased power of the will, we escape the confines of the egoic will. This is spiritualy liberating because the frustration of being confined by time, space and the iron laws of our normal condition are transcended. In the west this is often referred to as the path of magick. It is often perceived as being hazardous or morally dubious because we imagine that such powers will be exploited to selfish ends. But all those who have actaully gained the powers say the same thing: to gain the powers is simultaneous with transcendence of the ego. We therefore feel little desire to apply the powers to selfish ends. Power is a fruit of the spiritual life in whatever form it takes. The ambitious politician and business tycoon are yogis of a kind. They are lesser yogis because their heightened powers only operate within conventional conceptions of the laws of time and space. But they understand these laws well and deserve the acclaim and respect they receive from others whose mindview is at the same level. As lesser yogis they also deserve the despair when their schemes backfire. It seems that the mostt adored masters of humanity have eschewed transcendence of the egoic will in favour of transcendence of the egoic heart.

The fascination between men and women works on so many different levels and I think the sexual act symbolises these and realises them. It often occurs to me that reproduction is not at all the main reason for sex but a necessary outcome. Like smoke is not necessary to burn the wood, but is just part of the process. The experience of falling in love platonically with a member of the opposite sex can be an illuminating experience. The sex can be welcomed but is not at all the most important thing. The woman you love is fascinating you at the deepest levels of your being. Only experience rather than a Darwinian interpretation will ultimately answer the question for you.

Wow what a ride! Inspiring and informative. Thank you very much for doing this spotless! I even liked the glimpse into another practitoner's daily life. I get the feeling you are self-employed which is definitely where I want to be. Enjoy the cruise!

So I guess a fast also reaps all the benefits of retention? I have only limited experience of both, but both have given me a very positive keyed up feeling of energy. I found in both cases that I had to stop drinking coffee in order to keep the energy manageable.

I hope this is not a personal question, but have you noticed any changes in libido during a fast?

Couldn't agree more. This whole thread is actually an embarrassment to all who took part. We really should know better.

You've done good Karl - gracious, patient and generous with your word and time!

http://beginnerszen.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/on-black-swans-that-old-canard.html

Oh dear - you really are in a terrible trap but I don't know what to say. One moment you say all is reality, then you subscribe to all sort so of fixed views about reality, and then you say that your fixed views are your reality. It's the same trap that you saw in Seth Ananda. Like the trap of emptiness, it's the trap of form. You have no creative freedom whichever way you look.

Karl - you will speak words of wisdom half the time.

Karl - maybe your problem is that you can't tell the difference between reality and explanations of reality. You think that science and logic are keys to reality itself, when they quite obviously aren't. You are addicted to reality yet themoment you talk about reality you miss it, and yet you think logic escapes this?

Karl - as a writer you must be aware of your creativity. You are producing things the universe has not seen before. Is there such a thing as creativity ? Or is creativity just the expression of a regular law that we do not understand yet?

For the subjectivist, even the mechanical tic toc of reality is a product of our minds. The regularity we witness is a testament to the firmness of our beliefs. The question is: is the creative potential within us, or is the creative potential outside us? Scientific rationalists believe that the creative potential is outside of us. It was in the nature of the universe to big bang into existence. God believers also think the potential is outside us, but intelligent and purposive and not blind. But, in a de facto sense, both recognise the creative potential within the individual - it is the basis of moral responsibility. Subjectivists tend to be non-dualists. They see their own will as identical with th will that shapes the cosmos. God is something they partake of, something they themselves are. The universe arises from within them, and it's iron laws can change on a whim. Spiritual develepment for the dualist brings increased evidence of God's benign intervention in their affairs; or the increase in power and therefore will that comes through understanding the laws of nature (yes, science is spiritual practice !) For the non-dual subjectivist, synchroncities start to happen. What they wish for arrives uncannily. They develop the power to manifest stuff in the objective world. Can we not see the basic similarity here. Same experiences described with different words?

But you don't think people can dance and create rain through the power of intention / law of attraction or whatever? So, in the past, when people did rain dances they were under an illusion of causation? Perhaps the most seemingly successful dancers were simply good at sensing coming rain?

Karl - does reality behave according to its own principles? Or can the human creatively change the principles. For example could the human mind create rainfall as needed, say in the form of a dance? Or must human creativity adapt itself to the restraints of reality and wait passively for the rain?

If you've been brought up in a dreamy, unrational environment then logic, reason and science can come as revelation. In this day and age, it more often happens the other way round, at least to the highly educated. The scientific view is what we absorb at university, and it takes stunning insight and immense hard work to see how flaky the world of science is. With an enormous leap, We may look at the Tarot and the crystal headings with a newfound respect. The next step is he hardest. The next step you take alone. Because nearly everyone is still either for science or for crystals and you are for neither, and both.

Opening of the third eye and other by-products along the way... Pulp. How to create and strain away.

Karl You know, if there is one thing I will say for you...you are at least a bit different. Non-duality is so modish, that its rare to hear the logical counterpart. But I still hope you don't take it too seriously.

Jetsun, I'm simply saying that a hardcore dualist would explain any merging in dualistic terms. They would simply say that two bodies are capable of an intimacy way beyond neurotic co-dependency, but that it is still all down to two biological profiles.

Silent answers & Jetsun, But you both must realise that your experience is able to be explained either through duality or non-duality. Non-duality = separate consciousnesses becoming one and revealing the illusion of separation. Duality = A biochemical attraction so strong that it creates the illusion of unity. You can't verify beyond this. Both work as descriptons.

Brian But you said that the image is re-emitted at the mirror? If it is re-emitted then why does my eye not strain to see the reflected forest? I would say that when we see, we see from nowhere. The distance between the eye and the mirror is an illusion. The troubl focussing is due to our belief in our spatial location vis a vis the mirror. This reconciles the difficulty you talked about earlier between the re-emission theory and the bouncing theory.

Brian - could you explain something for me about mirrors? If I hold a mirror at an angle very close to my eye I need to seriously strain my eyes in order to see the dust and blemishes on the surface. If I relax my eyes, I can easily see the reflection of the forest through my window even though it is a hundred metres away. Why is this? Is the reflected forest not as close to my eyes as the blemishes?

Karl, I liked the autobiography part of the book because you present yourself as a rather unusual man with an unusual background. This has human interest, and you also write extremely nicely. The philosophical, speculative aspects I thought were banal and personally I would have got rid of them entirely were I your editor. People who aren't natural philosophers always sound a bit cocksure when they try it. Like that old saying 'there's no-one more confident than a bad poet.' If you aren't good at philosophy, you often misjudge the talents of the everage person, because for so long you've failed to notice their ability because you weren't up to scratch yourself. Then, late in the day you try and teach them how to suck eggs. I ended up taking very little notice of it, I certainly don't feel betrayed that you've since revised your views: there were in dire need of revision. Both your parents sounded like eccentrics in different ways. Poles apart, but in need of each other. I think your task is to gain some kind of synthesis between their two types of arch-flakiness.

It's conversations like this that show the utter futility of trying to discuss truth´, especially on an internet forum. If I met you, Karl, and saw that you felt my peace, I'd probably forgive you a lot of what you say. But based on your words alone...you showed nothing in your book, and you show nothing here. Now you warn us not to take notice of the book, I hope at some point in the future you gain the same perspective on your current output.

When the awakened speak the truth they do so with irony. The awakened auditor sees only the irony; the unawakened auditor hears the truth and agrees today, then diasagrees tomorrow.