futuredaze

Yeah, good points. I heard of Q a while ago but didn't really look into it until a few months ago. With a skeptics eye, I saw a lot of unconvincing proofs, some mildly convincing ones, and wrote it off, but not entirely. Then, the more I payed attention, the more I definitely think there is something to this. I like the mystery though- I could just assume that Q is someone in Trump's inner circle, that Q is a LARP, that Q is some sort of controlled opposition, but as soon as I feel that I "know" anything, I don't challenge myself in the same way as if it was a mystery. How does one measure which coincidences are meaningful? We humans are not purely rational beings, there is definitely a large amount of emotional processing going on here (nothing wrong with that, but we must be aware of it)-- some people have a skeptics temperament, some people want to believe, and some people are more agnostic. I think by this combination of self-awareness with our best efforts to approach this logically and open-minded, we can find where we stand.

"I don't get why people keep telling me I look like I lost weight, but I will try to remain indifferent about it."

Hey Bums, I was doing a guided meditation course when I was at a Tibetan temple in India, and we begun the meditation with relaxing the body before going into a more basic awareness of the breath and sensation/thought, similar to Vipassana. The relaxing of the body really helped me, and I have begun to integrate it with my daily meditation. If you haven't tried relaxing the body, try it! This particular meditation involved first relaxing the abdominal region, and then starting from the top of the head, gradually going down to the feet. I have tried this before, starting with the top of the head (from the Goenka retreats), but I liked starting from the abdomen. Starting from the center, the core. I am not sure if this is correct, per-se, but with my in-breath, I like to focus on the part of my body, just being aware of it in a neutral way; and with the out-breath, I will try to relax or "let go" from this body part. It feels amazing, as if the body part becomes totally opened up, healed and relaxed. I remember reading in the book on Gurdjieff, "In Search of the Miraculous" by his student, Ouspensky, that relaxing the body in such a way will increase your overall energy. I have definitely noticed an increase of energy, but it is subtle. I expect a more prominent change if done more regularly & skillfully. Let me know if you have tried this, or are interested in trying this. I'd be happy to try to give a more-detailed instruction. Blessings, Futuredaze

If I am working out or doing lots of physical labor in a day, I like to eat at least 2 meals. Otherwise, one meal a day is good - usually I will have 2 snacks though (fruit and nuts for breakfast and something light for dinner, leaving my meal for lunch). I'm pretty active though, so I usually end up eating my two meals.

The anti-grain thing is a bit excessive. Rice is one of the most balancing foods (so Ive heard but can also validate by experience), and I enjoy millet and oats on occasion. Even wheat can be helpful but it is heavy and something I try to use minimally. Taoism is more about harmony and moderation less about extremes.... but it is good to experiment. I do good with mininal meat and grains.

We are blessed with many opportunities... yet without focus, discernment, patience, and perseverence we cant do much. After spending about 10 years "discovering my place" with Zen Buddhism and Taoism mostly, now I feel I can "walk the path" without falling off a cliff or get stuck in destractions. Good luck on your practice! Im a bit interested in the Bon tradition, especially after coming back from North India seeing all the Tibetan refugees and the Dalai Lama.

It is funny that formerly Communist countries like Russia and Poland are almost always very anti-Communist. Even Cuban-Americans are generally much more right leaning than other latinos. On an unrelated note, congrats to Italy for electing Euroskeptic anti immigrant leadership. It isnt racist to oppose mass migration from 3rd world countries where many people have anti-Western ideologies.... it is common sense.

Just like paper money, cryptos are a tool, like a hammer. A hammer could be used to attack someone or to build a house. It depends on how it is used. True, any obsession with money, wealth, etc. is missing the point of spiritual practice. but, in my opinion, Cryptocurrencies present a promising alternative to fiat currency.

I liked Facebook a lot more before the "like" button... made things more about expression, feedback, and less about approval.

I am curious to see what will happen in the world of blockchain and cryptocurrency. Although Bitcoin is the most well-known cryptocurrency now, there are a lot of emerging coins that have better technology or more functions behind them. Ethereum, for instance, is a platform to run decentralized apps. All of this has the potential to lead to a more fair society with money that is not totally controlled by a centralized private institution. Seems like the end of 2017 the cryptocurrencies are getting more popular, but 2018 might be the breakthrough year. On a person note, I am starting to plan a few month trip to India with my partner. Looking very much forward to do some world travel again

mystery in the mist

It got smokey in NorCal this year!

near the border of Oregon and California

I love tamarind! Looking forward to eating a bunch in India next year when I travel there I've heard the fruit can help detox fluoride from the body and pineal gland. I believe it intuitively, but don't know 100% if it is true in a rational way.

Kind of reminds me of the quote about LSD... I forget who said it, maybe Tim Leary: "LSD increases long term memory, makes short term memory worse... and I forget the third thing."

I'd be interested if the Pharaohs in the Old Kingdom had similar genetics. Egypt has had a long history, so I wouldn't be surprised if the dominant group changed a couple times over the millennia.

I think it's pretty stupid, but not too surprising, that people just regard news sites as monogomous organizations. Even on CNN and NBC, I've read articles that are good, even though I normally joke about MSM reporting. Breitbart is no different- some of it is good, and relatively objective... then other stuff is poorly-written or one-sided. Now Washington Post and Huffington Post? I don't think I've seen anything good out of them. In fact, some of their journalism is so bad, I consider them the new Onion.

The two major statements about climate change are both unscientific: Anthropogenic climate change is not an "undeniable fact" nor is it a hoax. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan I do not think we have enough knowledge to predict the climate. If anybody knows of any climate models that have accurately forecasted the next 20+ years, let me know. Until then, I will be skeptical, and I think more people should be too. Both sides push their agendas and ignorance. Even if it is happening and is as bad as some say, there is no doubt that some will exploit it for personal gain. Therefore it is possible that anthropogenic climate change could both be an undeniable fact AND a hoax. But I think more research is needed -- weather and climate systems seem very complex, more than any scientific models can accurately reflect. Maybe one day, we will have a good enough understanding, but I don't think we are there yet! but I'm not an expert, so if any of you are, please let me know of the best studies, researchers, etc. to look into.

I'm from the U.S., glad this got rejected. I used to buy into the whole gloom-and-doom climate change scenario, but I am more skeptical now. What I am in favor of - more research into climate science and honest debate, from both sides. So many people only know one side (usually the Al Gore "save the polar bears" pseudoscience emotional manipulation), but it's good to hear both arguments. Either way, there would be obvious economic losses if the U.S. signed this. Compare that to HYPOTHETICAL (even the U.N. research says the difference would be small) changes in climate that would result from signing this. Stefan Molyneux does a pretty good breakdown of this. I've heard these bureaucrats, politicians, and other con-artists called "watermelons" meaning Green "progressives" on the outside, Red Marxists on the inside.

Once this "honest public examination of political Islam" occurs, I suspect that many people will agree with me that mass deportation is necessary. Maybe I shouldn't have said "is the only solution" but "in my opinion, seems to be the best solution." I'm not saying: deport all Islamists. France can start by deporting non-citizens, especially criminal offenders. They broke the law getting in, and there should be no hard feelings kicking them out. Of course having safe spaces, or some other place set up for them to go, would be optimal. but, like I said before, the West needs to abandon the hallucination that it can save the poor repressed minorities around the world. The West needs to save itself before it can even think of helping other cultures. Read about the Koran, about Taqiyya, about Sharia law... you will eventually agree with me. It's either Sharia for Europe, or Reconquista 2.0. This sounds ridiculous now, but if things don't change, in 20-30 years it will not sound so ridiculous. Migration patterns, birthrates in Europe vs. Muslims, and history all support my claims. The sooner Europe acts (skillfully, we can hope), the less bloodshed there will be.

Mass deportation seems to be the only solution. Otherwise, the terrorism will rise, the French culture will be threatened. Immigration often goes hand and hand with war. To some Western lefties, these are "refugees", but they will call themselves "invaders" -- who is more right here? Even if only a small percentage of Muslims are actually going to commit violent acts, that will lead to hundreds, and eventually THOUSANDS of casualties. Is tolerance worth killing people, mass suffering in families, massive civil unrest, and the looming threat of getting hijacked by this radical ideology? People say "you probably won't get attacked." That's true, but I counter with the fact that SOMEONE will, someone innocent. We can't expect to save the world, that's naive. We have to start with our families, local communities, and eventually our nations. We can do great things as a nation that leads by example, but when nations try to fix the world, we get lots of dead bodies. Look at the Soviet Union, Mao's China, Nazi Germany... the road to hell is indeed paved with good intentions.

Ok, so I looked into it and found that it wasn't him who said it, it was Valls: "“Times have changed and we should learn to live with terrorism,” Valls said at the time. The comments led to the socialist being cursed and jeered in public, and played a prominent role in terminating his own hopes of a presidential run." http://vesselnews.io/frances-macron-terrorism-part-daily-lives-years-come/ I thought it was Macron who said this... but it turns out he said it is an "imponderable problem” which will be “part of our daily lives for the years to come”. Imponderable, huh? Why can't we think about terrorism- it's causes, it's potential effects? I can certainly fucking ponder it, and I'm not special. Why would these puppet politicians even try to say it is "imponderable"? There is a clear cause here, it isn't "mental illness", it isn't "hot weather" -- although these things may help trigger the behavior prescribed by the Koran. So you are right, that he didn't say that. but, in my opinion, these statements are quite similar. If we can't (1) Talk about problems, then we can't (2) Act to fix problems. both Macron and Valls are both burying their heads in the sand. That is dangerous, and treason.

I hope Le Pen wins. Anybody who says "we must learn to live with terrorism", like Macron, is a total sell-out. People should have no fear to speak out against shitty ideologies (exactly what dogmatic Abrahamic religion, especially Islam, is), and in favor for the safety and well-being of their own culture and heritage.

That is true that spiritual protection seems to be treated differently in Vajrayana Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism also seems to address this. Theravada Buddhism, not so much. Buddhism is vast, though, like any spirituality. Every school will claim to be the best, but ultimately that is somewhat subjective. I've been to Zen centers, Vipassana retreats (Theravada), and a few Tibetan temples. It was good to explore the different styles of Buddhism so I could find what works best for me. Some people pick one, some combine different things from different teachings.

While it seems that a lot of shamanic traditions, and then even some religions like Taoism and Christianity, utilize this idea of "spiritual protection," Buddhism does not really talk much about it. I am thinking of the time the Buddha mentioned that he just teaches "a handful of leaves" compared to the whole tree of leaves, the whole of his knowledge. The Buddha only taught the most practical, most relevant "leaves" to his students. For me, just observing any negative sensation in meditation ultimately dispels it. I'm not sure how this works, to be honest. I think that since we normally cling to, or run from, phenomena, experience, etc., that the stillness in meditation is something of a remedy for maladies (physical and spiritual alike). Just my two cents, of course, but I pay no more attention to "spiritual protection" than I do to flies. Of course if something is a physical or psychological threat, I will try my best to address it. but a lot of spiritual things are more mental, and those things are dealt with differently.