themiddleway

I can't upload a photo?

"Sudden emergence" quote is from a 2007 paper by Eugene Koonin, of the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the National Institutes of Health, the paper is titled " The Biological Big Bang Model for the Major Transition in Evolution." I will quote more to give you a context.. "Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity..The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities, are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin`s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution.. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life`s history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate grades or intermediate forms between different types are detectable." Im not advocating creationism but an honest appraisal of Darwinism would conclude that the theory is unpersuasive and underdeveloped. Precisely the reason why scientists should be studying pontential anomalies like the Paracas skulls, instead of cherry picking from the fossil record to justify "just so stories". The greatest mystery for me is how in 3.5 billion years random chemical reactions in some primodial soup can lead to the develop of a system as complex as the human brain, unfortunately the "god of the gaps" is still very much in play.

So the idea that if a scientist makes money from his knowledge on a subject and engages in self promotion, be it Inca history or half baked evolutionary ideas, his research and credibility is therefore compromised? Take Richard.Dawkins he was a professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, not bad for a humble zoologist. His book the God Delusion has sold more than 2 million copies in English alone and I imagine that he dose quite well out of the lucrative speaking circuit. There Dawkins enchants the faithful with his, in the words of evolutionary biologist Micheal Lynch "profoundly misleading views" on natural selection. Dawkins childish and anthropentric rhetoric in the book ,the Selfish Gene, treats genes as purposive entities with goals and powers that go far beyond those of a mere chemical like DNA. On the subject of credentials, you might want to familarize youself with the work of mathematical biologist Motoo Kimura, his research found that on the genetic level most mutations are neutral. Essentially the majority of evolutionary changes are caused by random gentic drift not by Darwian selection. The problem is, to the extent to which neutral theory is true, Darwins theory is not. The "vague reference" to a biologist is the geneticist James A Shapio, his book "Evolution A View from the 21st century", might disabuse you of your schooling in Dawkins misleading mechanistic cash cow. Shapio details the current understanding on the genome as a read/write system, essentialy nature is engaged in genetical engeenering. This may help us answer among other things...why the fossil record dose not support a strictly gradualistic account, how and when do species arise and the fact that "major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of SUDDEN EMERGENCE".. that last part is from Eugene Koonin, check him out to familirize your self with more credentials. So credentials, self promotion, buisness, epistemology are not so consistency in the orthodoxy either. As for Brien.Foerster`s credentials, the ad hominem article you posted as your rebuttal noted that he has a science diploma, he has also been quite vocal about debunking a lot of the claims from the ancient alien crowd but the journalist did not mention that. A fringe subject like this will always attract those types, Brien can not be blamed if they are hijacking his work at popularizing the enigmatic Paracas culture. From my observation Brien´s approach is grounded in empirical and measurable evidence but he also has to take advantage of publicity channels that are less than ideal, he believes his work is important. Which brings us to the subject of the "unnamed geneticist".Given that the orthodoxy would not be seen dead handling the Paracas skulls and their disdain for any research that challenges the status quo, keeping the identity of the geneticist private is prudent. A mainstream scientist treating this subject seriously is tantamount to career suicide. Lastly the issue that all the skeptics are avoiding is the obvious anatomical differences, chiefly the Paracas skulls only contain one parietal plate.

As for the creditionals of Brien's geneticist I have know idea, this testing has only just received funding to go ahead, partly by Brian.Foerster and partly by interested third parties. So to reiterate the testing has only just began, I don't know what studies you are referring to Ralis....? I know the sequencing is not finished yet. The geneticist has stated that he would be willing to go public and publish his findings in a peer reviewed journal if the sequencing shows an evolutionary anomaly. So we will have to wait and see. Just a general comment about genes and evolution, most people are unaware of recent developments in molecular biology; biologists have moved from a mechanistic view to an informatic understanding of cellular processes. The view of the genome as a read only memory system has been replaced by read & write system subject to non random change. Systems engineering is a better metaphor for the evolutionary process rather than the random walk through currently taught. Bullheaded selectionists like Richard.Dawkins are going to find their position increasingly untenable as we reveal more about the informatic basis of the genome. Brien.Foerster has studied head binding, if you actually watch the video he compares a normal human skull, a human skull that has been bound and the elengated skull. Head binding can change the shape but not the mass, other curiosities are one plate as opposed to our two, less molars and larger eye sockets. The skulls were found in region of Peru that have many remarkable megalithic constructions such as the Cusco wall. If you actually watch the video you can see the evidence of precise polygonal construction with water tight seams! Very hard to do with stone hammers and copper chisels that the Inca were using. So it's not unreasonable to propose that an advanced culture existed in this area and pre dated the Inca by maybe a thousand or more years.

The workmanship in this wall is astonishing.

Interesting perspective below, protecting the fidelity of the teachings vis a vis an honest examination of where an individuals development is at. THE BLOG The Importance of Debating Religious Differences Rajiv Malhotra05/14/11 03:37 PM ET I want all the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. --Gandhi In most liberal circles, discrimination on account of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity and race is rightly denounced. Human diversity is not only widely accepted in these domains but also celebrated. Of course, the journey is by no means complete, and it has been long and tough for those who pioneered it. In my own work, I'm inspired by feminists who courageously challenged masculine paradigms on gender, African-Americans who heralded their unique culture and identity rather than becoming subsumed as subordinates or an exotic addition to a "universal" culture, and leaders of the gay rights movement who undermined the prevailing hegemony on sexual orientation. In each of the examples above, alternate perspectives challenged head-on the dominant discourse, categories and frameworks that were well entrenched as normative and "universal." But in interfaith discussions, we still shy away from making similar bold challenges to the established worldview. Rather, what is frequently espoused is the mere "tolerance" of other religions. In an earlier blog I explained the important distinction between tolerance and mutual respect, and the need to advance from the former to the latter. Mutual respect requires appreciation of what makes other faiths distinct from one's own; anything less is empty rhetoric. Such an approach compels thinkers to uncover differences, take honest risks and reject the politically correct but eventually unproductive stance that "all religions are the same." Indeed, my own experiences with the Jewish community, as recounted in an earlier blog, have shown that many cultural misunderstandings can be resolved through the forthright articulation of religious differences. Many of my writings explore this huge resistance in the public square to uncovering and embracing religious differences. I use the term "difference anxiety" to describe the psychological distress that stems from viewing differences as problematic rather than natural. There are deep-rooted reasons for this anxiety, a topic I explore in detail in my forthcoming book, The Audacity of Difference. Suffice it is to say here that any productive interfaith dialogue must first acknowledge and accept the distinctiveness of the spiritual, cultural and historical matrix of each civilization,and challenge the Western penchant for claiming universalism for itself. China and the Islamic world offer counter-examples to the claim that globalization must mean Westernization. Weming Tu of Harvard makes the point that Chinese civilization has its own paradigm for modernity based on Confucianism, and that this is not contingent on China's Westernization. Islam, too, has its own alternative worldview including a distinct theology, sociology and political framework. A resistance to articulating and understanding differences, religious and otherwise, also comes from many Indians who are remarkably Eurocentric in their views. One hears many modern Indians ask: Aren't we all really "the same"? What's wrong with a "universal" point of view? Isn't it wonderful that millions of Westerners practice yoga, and Indian cuisine has gone global? Additionally, fashionable academic constructs such as "post-modern," "post-racial," "post-religious" and "post-national" seem to announce the arrival of a flat, secularized world that is not differentiated by peoples' histories, identities and religious points of view. My own enthusiasm to this confluence of cultures is balanced by the fact that this fusion does not always preserve diversity and is often inequitable. What remain intact are many structures that support power and that privilege the mythological, historical and religious beliefs of the West. I use the term "digestion" to describe the widespread dismantling, rearrangement and assimilation of a less powerful civilization into a dominant one. Like the food consumed by a host: what is useful gets assimilated into the host while what does not fit the host's structure gets eliminated as waste. The West superimposes its concepts, aesthetics, language, paradigms, historical template and philosophy, positioning these as universal. The corresponding elements of the digested civilization get domesticated into the West, ceasing to exist in their own right. The result is that the consumed tradition, similar to the food, ceases to exist whereas the host gets strengthened. In harvesting the fruits of other civilizations, the West has often destroyed their roots, thereby killing their ability to produce more bountiful harvests. Native Americans and European pagans are among numerous examples of such previous digestions into the modern West. This process is often rationalized as the inevitable "march of civilization," with the West positioned as the center of the world and the engine driving it forward. The non-Western civilizations are considered relevant only as sources "discovered" by the West (as in "our past") or as theaters in which the West operates ("our civilizing mission") or as threats to Western interests ("our frontiers"). Every civilization deserves a seat at the table as an equal and as the subject rather than only as the object of inquiry. Every religion and its assumptions, must like all other areas of human knowledge be subject to critique on a level playing field. None, however powerful and well-funded, ought to be exempt from scrutiny or be privileged to set the terms. In the realm of interfaith gatherings, we need forums where non-Christians may challenge the "universal" concepts being applied to all world religions, in the same manner as women, African-Americans and homosexuals have already achieved in their respective domains. I predict that in five years there will be such mainstream inter-religious discourse in which it will no longer be considered too controversial to challenge one another audaciously in the quest for honest understanding. The Audacity of Difference uncovers several profound metaphysical distinctions between dharmic and Western assumptions. This is not about superiority or inferiority but about positioning religious differences as humanity's multifaceted experience and a shared resource.

In my case I'm definitely not beyond clinging to the raft and I get a lot of surety from knowing that my chosen path is a well delineated one. My objection is directed at the uncharitable tone in online Dharma discussions, exemplified by a recently banned forum guest. To paraphrase Malcolm (again) :"Do we really have our shit together more than other traditions"?

A more succinct version of what I was trying to say

I agree with what Steve said. Really comes down to whether Ba Gua can be classed as skill-full means, it's certainly skill-full. Wouldn't other forms of Buddhist Chi Kung be more appropriate, if there is such a thing?

I don't need a lesson in Buddhism. I was after an explanation of what Hindu La-la land meant? You buttress your argument on Buddhism with novel length quotes and pass off Hinduism with a short statement from a nursery line. Could you mean that by giving primacy to consciousness (or should I say mind..) one proceeds to Hindu La-la land? I mean how dare they infer the primacy of consciousness from reality, cause that's so far from experience. And on the other side of the reality scales we have the Tetra lemma, x exists, x dose not exist, x neither exists or dose not exist, you get the idea. Forgive me for injecting some incidental reality into internet Dharma debates but dose any of the above have any bearing on ones day to day life? Splitting hairs over such abstract finger pointers just shows scholars predication for pointless confrontation, as Malcolm says, ultimately as a species if we are to survive we have to put down our banners. I can see elements of crypto-idealism in one and crypto-nihilism in the other but neither has any primacy in day to day living. And more importantly neither catches the richness and wonder of being alive, so fuck Buddhism and Advaita. "My philosophy is kindness" Simple and more pertinent than any Tetra lemma.

I'm sure Malcolm would now regret saying Hindu La la land. What the fuck is that supposed to mean anyway? The Buddhist and the Shaivites were in dialog, the influences of each permeated the other. The endless rhetorical battle over normative Buddhism is a limitation, yes it's fun to discuss conditioned consciousness vis a vis permeated consciousness but don't cherish such abstractions. I prefer to CLING to the idea that beings with consciousness pervade everywhere, gives me a focused target for kindness and generosity. And just to validate the above a quote from your besty Malcolm: >>I don't care anymore where wisdom comes from-- wisdom about plants, yoga, channels, winds, bindus, nature of mind, elements, people, etc. I just don't care anymore where it comes from. Wisdom is wisdom. If other people want to be involved in counting the horns on rabbits with tenet system studies, that is fine, I also put in my time with it until I realized it was a total waste of energy and never got me one inch closer to recognizing my true nature. That kind of knowledge, as far as I am concerned is only useful for polemics. And polemics are useful for nothing but passing the time, verbal flatuence for the most part. I personally ceased being very interested in the intellectual study of tenet systems many years ago when I understood from a work by Gorampa Sonam Senge's that they are unnecessary for Vajrayāna practitioners in general. Since that time I have been primarily interested in the Yogic side of Buddhism once I understood finally that correct view is based on the personal experience of the introduction and not on any intellectual analysis and subsequent meditation.<<<

I must admit I was very confused when I first came to Buddhism. This was compounded by reading about dharma on Internet forums, I actually have gone down a number of dead ends from buying into BS on the internet but that's for another time and place. The edifice of Buddhism can seem like a self contradicting labyrinth, focusing on one teacher/teaching has helped me immensely. Where as before I would be very reactive, I'm now more settled, secure. Consciously spending more time practicing than reading tedious Dhamric legalisms = Success! If a path is not nourishing your basic, wholesome sanity then its less than worthless. Sounds axiomatic but I totally lost sight of that. Sorry about the bio but in discussing heady terminology, philosophy it's good to pause and ask in the X amount of time I've invested in this or that school am I a better, saner, happier EASY TO BE AROUND HUMAN BEING. Way-yyy more important than refining ones dialectics, and based on the behaviour of some "enlightened" teachers not neccesraliy coalescent. As for the 84000 dharma doors, there just medicine. Mature Buddhist know how to maintain the purity of medicine without reifying it to the point where it can be used as a projectile. I think exploring the nuances of traditions can be useful but people do get immense benefit from other paths. Terms like Crypto- advaita seem the antithesis of a scholasticism tempered with generosity, and that's precisely where it becomes toxic. You could be forgiven for reading Crypto- nilism into Buddhism, no?

@Gaito My lama states that his education conditioned him, he is quite open about how brainwashed he was by Sakya polemics. He describes meeting his root Guru and how his master demolished all his preconceptions about awakening vis a vis Sakya teachings on emptiness. The kagyu school is more focused on practise, owing to their early founders like Marpa and Milarepa, the atypical wild yogi. The notion that Buddhism has to be based on a exhaustive intellectual approach is BS. There is an archetype within Tantra of the scholar abandoning study to find Gnosis in the everyday world. The interesting question is why people keep persisting with it in Dharma circles. It's saddening to see Westerners perpetuating Indo-Tibetan sectarianism. We should be questioning the need for debate. Why dose Tibetan Buddhism have a superiority complex ? Is this the outcome of institutional debate? It's interesting that Tibet expelled a non-gradual form of Dharma, only to later have Dzogchen masters most prominent in the Rime movement. The sectarianism within Tibet illustrates the latent toxicity in a overly scholastic approach. Lest we forget.

From the blurb: Reading and memorization are not enough; students must be able to verbalize their understanding and defend it under the pressure of fierce cross-examination. This whole thread is an example of ' fierce cross-examination' , lol. As for the 'violence inherent in the author's apparent assumption' all debates begin with the presupposition by either party that they are right until proven otherwise. This books subject really originates in classical Indian epistemology and dialectics. This vibrant intellectual milieu produced the complexities and nuances we see in all the Dharmic religions. The prominence of debate in Buddhist scholasticism was also linked to competing for patronage in India. This wasn't just limited to Buddhism, the Jains and Shaivites all indulged in it. The Buddha was depicted as being a fierce critic of brahmanism and also received death threats during his preaching career. My view on debate is that it's all ready been done to death, terms like crypto- advaita illustrate peoples endless ability to spin new jargon.

At what point dose debate go too far? We could up the stakes -no pun intended -see below the consequences of being on the losing team in Ancient Indian dialectics: when the Tamil Śaivite Ñānasambandar Nāyanār defeated the Jain ācāryas in Madurai before the Pāṇḍya King Māravarman Avaniśūlāmani (620-645) this debate is said to have resulted in the impalement of 8000 Jains, an event still celebrated in the Mīnāksi Temple of Madurai today. Makes TTB look tame by comparison. Of course there is the Samye Debate, also called Council of Lhasa, in Tibetan Buddhism, a two-year debate (c. 792794 ce) between Indian and Chinese Buddhist teachers held at Samye, the first Buddhist monastery in Tibet. The debate centred on the question of whether enlightenment (bodhi) is attained gradually through activity or suddenly and without activity.Which resulted in the expulsion of Chan from Tibet. The above debate is still used to perpetuate Indo-Tibetan pejoratives against Chan/Zen. But wait there's more, tsongkhapa definition of emptiness opens another can of worms. The Sakya's believed that Tsong. was possessed by a demon, that's how strongly they disagree with his version of stuff existing but not existing. More often than not debate leads to sectarianism, the old adage of silence is golden seems fitting and peaceful. My lama CHNN was chastised by his root Guru for being too overly invested in Tibetan dialectics. When the young CHNN started spouting a Sakya interpretation of the madhyamika, his root guru remarked: " The madyamika is your nose and your mouth." This nonsensical remark was taken to mean shut up you have no real knowledge.

This quote from Bruce.Lincoln is appropriate: Processes of authorization that invoke the divine or transcendent at some crucial point of their operation seem typical of societies in which the foundational assumptions...made normative by the European Enlightenment have not acquired hegemonic status. It would be foolish-not to say presumptuous and ethnocentric-for those of us who stand on one side of the divide to underestimate the complexity, seriousness, efficacy, and importance of the differing ideological styles more commonly employed by our counterparts located on the other.'

Read this? http://books.google.com.au/books/about/Making_Sense_of_Tantric_Buddhism.html?id=urzm9J4tbpwC It's very dense but worth it, it doesn't deal with the practices of Tantra.

I have only received teachings from my Dzogchen lama. Aside from Guru yoga I employ support practices like Trul Kor, mantra, pranayama and other seated meditative methods. I practice Dzogchen because I have a strong connection with my Lama and it works for me, I don't like Dzogchen exceptionalism. I'm not convinced about the Historicity of Dzogchen, I prefer to think of it as a off shoot from the Maha siddha movement in India. For example Trul Kor was transmitted buy the Siddha Humkara, My lama also teaches Chod which came from Machig Labdron etc Padmasambava supposedly learnt Tantric methods from a lot of different Gurus including the mythic Garab Dorje. The point I'm trying to make is we know virtually nothing about the early founders of Vajrayana so clinging too tightly to namers like Dzogchen Mahamudra belies the unsubstantiated origins of Vajrayana. I believe it began as a revelatory movement in ossified monastic institutions, in fact you could argue that all of Buddhism was revelatory, since it's questionable whether shakyamuni existed. We tend to ignore a lot of the above when wrestling with semantics-that's not to say that debate is'nt useful - but it should not supplant practice. The only thing that really matters is finding a proper Guru and applying their teachings. Some people aren't very interllectaul, I'm not so good at debate, I would prefer my yoga mat over words any day.

I think a little bit of interlectual toing and froing should be tolerated, after all we are dealing with an experience uncommon in the West. Another example is the word ´chi´. If Taoists want to debate the finer points about what that word means are they over intellectualizing aswell? People who have invested time in Eastern traditions are justifiably cautious about meanings being appropriated and diluted by New Age crap. Have you been to a bookshop and looked for shammanic books? Next could be ´Drum your way the Rigpa´ but I digress. Terms like awareness and knowledge have to be unpacked,contexualized and compared to experience. At this juncture in the assimilation of Dharma in the west it´s not just intellectualizing, its a responsibility to the transmission Awareness is not a free floating object ,it is always aware of something.As an apparatus of experience it is a conditioned arising. Awareness could be misconstrued as an object to merge with, a seductive idea for someone conditioned by the mores of a Christian society, a la Eckhart Tolle. Knowledge denotes an experience more precise, defenitive and exclusionary. Either you have it or you don´t. The mind collapses or is swallowed buy the recognition experience Yes its beyond words but some descriptors are more skillful.

That was excellent, thank you.

I think your missing the point, Ya Mu is presenting the qi arts as a complete system. A person could utilize any of the practises above without having to study the first noble truth. Its nice to let traditions stand up on there own, honour there integrity and contribution to humanity. Buddhists seem to forget that alot. I know you mean well.

I've done both and in my experience they are very different, different energetic architecture. I believe that Taoist take more of a substanialist approach to chi which may explain qigong's success in health care. Trul Kor comes from an understanding that mind and body are co-dependent and insubstantial. You have to of practised both to really get it, even within Qigong there can vast differences between forms but one crucial difference in Chinese culltivation is the metal element, 'the holding of form'.

I agree about not mixing systems. Yantra yoga is very different from qigong /martial qi gong in my experience, best to commit to one system. I have only been practising Yantra for a short time but it has replaced all my other bodywork excersises. Its been very effective for me at moving out a lot of emotional garbage but I also think that qigong is awesome for health particulary for people who can not do yoga movements.

I would go to that if I was in London, £130 is quite reasonable for a weekend of instruction.