Learning to surf the Ocean of energy

[Limahong]

On 7/18/2017 at 8:03 AM, silent thunder said:

 

Quote

(2) The Same Source is the TAO?

Tao works for me often, but not always.  Source is source, and that term is more neutral to me, so I like it right now.

 

But I do find whatever name I try and use, it never seems to encompass and adequately express the experiences I'm trying to convey and share with the words... but I try anyway ...

 

So if the things I love, flowers and the things I don't like... dog shit, come from the same source... then the difference in my experience of them probably lies in my awareness... in my mind. 

 

I love this insight because it reminds me my responsibility in all my interactions, thoughts and judgements.

 

Hi silent thunder.

 

Yes source is source.

 

Tao is a 'label, tag, ticket, brand ...' - for communal identification, alignment and dialogue?

 

Does each of us identifies with one's own individual source?.

 

Why? Because of "my responsibility" in relation to "my interactions, thoughts and judgements"?

 

- LimA

[Limahong]

On 7/18/2017 at 8:03 AM, silent thunder said:

Quote

(No I'm not serious.  I'm never serious.  I am however completely sincere.)

(3) But of course - anything, everything, something and nothing is possible in the TAO.

I should amend this one... I'm rarely serious, not never serious.

 

Seems in the West we have supplanted the words sincere and serious.  For me, there are very very few things we need to be serious about... but it is almost never possible for me to be insincere.  This is a tricky bit and can easily drop into semantics.  But for me, intention is key to the mix and too often, in my upbringing in particular, seriousness was a panacea to connote sincerity when often, it turned out, there was no sincerity and the seriousness was a mask to cover ulterior motives.

 

So I rarely am serious... but can't recall the last time i found it ok, or palatable to be insincere.

 

I find levity and laughter to be paramount in my process of late, which is all about being aware... acknowledging conditions of life as they are, doing what I can, or not, as is my nature... and then utterly releasing what transpires to live in the moment as fully as I am able.

 

 

Hi silent thunder,

 

I believe many will join me in thanking you for sharing the above with us.

 

You are serious and sincere.

 

There is no semantics. You are you, and you are living in the moment the best you can.

 

You are the moment?

 

Thank you.

 

- LimA

Edited July 24, 2017 by Limahong
Enhancement of sentence.

[Limahong]

Hi silent thunder,

 

On 7/18/2017 at 8:03 AM, silent thunder said:

For many years I thought that my perception of the universe was truth.  That I saw and heard and took in reality with my senses accurately. 

Ignorance and/or arrogance of youth.

 

On 7/18/2017 at 8:03 AM, silent thunder said:

I no longer can make that claim.  Most of my thoughts seem to be emotional reactions and are utter fantasy.

Some thoughts are important... at least to me.  Wasn't it Buddha who said... "be careful what you let yourself think... your thoughts become your reality.

Wisdom of age.

 

On 7/18/2017 at 8:03 AM, silent thunder said:

I was raised fundamentalist, evangelical christian.  Extreme judgement.  Extreme guilt and shame over very natural things.

Examples of extreme unnatural over very natural please. Thank you.

 

On 7/18/2017 at 8:03 AM, silent thunder said:

It was abusive and harmful to me.

Poor thing.

 

On 7/18/2017 at 8:03 AM, silent thunder said:

So after my apostasy.

Sorry I first read it as autopsy.

 

On 7/18/2017 at 8:03 AM, silent thunder said:

I have come to re-evaluate regularly the thoughts that settle on my thought pond. 

For you to ponder? Now you respond better? Good correspondences? Less despondent?...

 

On 7/18/2017 at 8:03 AM, silent thunder said:

I find, the vast majority of them have little to no bearing on reality and thus no longer live long in my awareness due to this insight lighting my awareness.

No + no => insight => awareness?

 

On 7/18/2017 at 8:03 AM, silent thunder said:

Can't believe everything I think...

But according to Rene Descartes - ‘I Think Therefore I Am’. So sometimes you are unbelievable - to yourself and others?

 

- LimA

[Limahong]

Hi silent thunder,

 

In this post, I like to share Rene Descartes' Cartesian dualism thus:

 

QUESTION: What is Cartesian dualism?
ANSWER: From - AllAboutGOD.com

Dualism is an ancient concept that was deeply rooted in Greek thought. However, long before that, the ancient scriptures taught that mankind was made in God’s image and that Adam needed the spirit breathed into him before becoming a living soul. Almost 2000 years after Plato and Aristotle reasoned that the human mind or soul could not be identified with the physical body, Rene Descartes reinforced this concept and gave it a name, dualism. The word “Cartesius” is simply the Latin form of the name Descartes. Consequently, Cartesian dualism is simply Descartes concept of dualism. 

Descartes’ famous saying epitomizes the dualism concept. He said, “cogito ergo sum,” “I reflect therefore I am.” Descartes held that the immaterial mind and the material body are two completely different types of substances and that they interact with each other. He reasoned that the body could be divided up by removing a leg or arm, but the mind or soul were indivisible. 

This concept is difficult to accept for those with a secular humanist, materialist, and evolutionist worldview because accepting it is accepting super-naturalism. Consequently, Bible believers accept dualism and people with the opposite worldview find themselves obligated to reject it. 

 

A rejection of Cartesian Dualism:

 

 

 

Yours and others' thoughts on - Cartesian dualism versus Taoist dualism. Please share.

 

- LimA

Edited July 25, 2017 by Limahong
Enhancement of sentence.

[Limahong]

19 hours ago, Limahong said:

Cartesian dualism versus Taoist dualism

 

Hi silent thunder,

 

I personally believe that there is a good alignment between the two modes of dualism. My sentiments are reflected thus:

 

Paraphrased from: LeJavier @ Reddit TAOISM

 

You'll have to forgive the philosophizing, which I'm pretty sure is frowned upon by most Taoists as being pointless and distracting. But we might as well have some kind of discussion going on in a discussion board.

 

Physicalism, or materialism, is the philosophical idea that everything that exists is whatever's physical or material - the stuff in the universe is all there is. Our consciousness is an illusion, all our emotions and brain patterns are neural patterns, and so on. This is the strictly scientific view.

 

Dualism is the idea that there is something "else" that exists "outside" the material. The particulars vary from there - reincarnation, life after death, living souls; there are many flavors. This is generally considered a "religious" or "spiritual" perspective.

 

It would seem that these ideas are mutually exclusive - it must be one or the other, it can't be both. Either everything is material, or everything isn't material. Western society's seeming obsession with the battle between the two has been raging since Ancient Greece.

 

But one of Taoism's great themes is the unity of all things. It's not alone among the eastern philosophies for a sort of monist worldview, but in Taoism I've found it best expressed - all things are all things, and therefore are one and the same. (I'll assume I'm preaching to the choir on this point, which is of course the most difficult to get across to most people, but hopefully won't be an issue here. Feel free, by the way, to disagree and posit a better wording or perspective.)

 

The key is that Taoists wouldn't recognize a difference between the spiritual and the material. These are two labels slapped on different "parts" of the Tao. Since existence, to a Taoist, is essentially experiential, what's important isn't distinguishing between materials and non-materials, but recognizing all things as part of your experience, and therefore part of everything. Any other way is as pointless as identifying an "absolute east".

 

Of course, this doesn't mean science or religion are wrong. A scientist is only using a certain tool set to achieve his goals. But the deepest questions of life can never be answered by him, and even the answers he does have are approximate. The priest does the same - he answers other questions, but never with perfect accuracy, and always with a strong bias towards what worked for him.

 

Only the Tao unifies all, is blind to bias, and transcends perspective.

 

Any opposition to the above account of Taoist dualism as having a fitting alignment with Descartes' dualism?

 

- LimA

 

[Limahong]

Hi silent thunder,

 

On Descartes' dualism, which do you think is more important - body or mind?

 

If you think it is the mind - why?

 

- LimA

[silent thunder]

Very potent stuff LimA... thank you for sharing.

 

Lately, (last few years).. I have been aware that there is no longer for me a hard and distinguishable barrier between body/mind and spiritual nature.  They are no longer considered separate, but ceaselessly I am experiencing them as the ever inter-responsive, synthesizing expressions of source in varying manners/frequencies and resonance. My old manners of perception lent to the idea that maybe truth and spirituality were separate from my mind and my body... and that to achieve spiritual insight I had to reach outside myself, or renounce the body, or reject the mind.  To a book, or master, or method, or a natural place such as a river, waterfall or forest.  This sense fueled my ceaseless seeking for decades.  

 

Now I sense that I am never at any moment, apart from source, spirituality imbues every nuance of every object, thought and motion and that my very sense of seeking was one of the major impediments to my experience of unity and bliss.

 

What we as humans often describe and refer to as spiritual in our writings and sharing, has come it seems to me, to carry a connotation of 'otherness', of 'out there-ness' to spiritual experiences.  That spiritual insights and experiences are somehow apart from our core essential nature, our physical form and mind.  Increasingly I have the palpable sense that there is no longer an appreciable distinction of these, that they are facets of one (source) gem, not separate things of themselves.  Never apart from me in this moment here, with this breath, in my hair clippings, even my piss and shit.

 

Your thoughts on this have been echoing all week while I considered my response.  Thanks again.  Potent stuff.

 

 

[silent thunder]

this quote from Alan Watts stood out when I read it while mulling over your observations and questions.

It is the opening of his book THIS IS IT.

 

Quote

Although written at different times during the past four years, the essays here gathered together have a common point of focus--the spiritual or mystical experience and its relation to ordinary material life.  Having said this, I am instantly aware that I have used the wrong words; and yet there are no satisfactory alternatives. 

 

Spiritual and mystical suggest something rarefied, otherworldly, and loftily religious, opposted to an ordinary material life which is simply practical and commonplace.  The whole point of these essays is to show the fallacy of this opposition, to show that the spiritual is not to be separated from the material, nor the wonderful from the ordinary.  We need, above all, to disentangle ourselves from habits of speech and thought which set the two apart, making it impossible for us to see that this--the immediate, everyday, and present experience--is IT, the entire, ultimate point. 

 

But the recognition that the two are one comes to pass in an elusive, though relatively common, state of consciousness which has fascinated me beyond all else since I was seventeen years old.

 

[Limahong]

12 hours ago, silent thunder said:

We need, above all, to disentangle ourselves from habits of speech and thought which set the two apart, making it impossible for us to see that this--the immediate, everyday, and present experience--is IT, the entire, ultimate point.

 

Hi silent thunder,

 

 

IT  =  MOMENT?

 

I am glad to have joined TDB. Have met some of you who helped me to sort out my thinking and add new perspectives to my life.

 

You are one of them. Thank you.

 

- LimA

Edited July 30, 2017 by Limahong
Correct typo error.

[Limahong]

MOMENTS

 

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2017 by Limahong
Enhancement of sentence.

[silent thunder]

10 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi silent thunder,

 

 

IT  =  MOMENT?

sure... moment as in the present now this moment... this is it

 

all there is and all there ever is... and it is all of it.

 

or just the all ecompassing word LIFE is another term that settles on my thought pond. 

10 hours ago, Limahong said:

 

I am glad to have joined TDB. Have met some of you who helped me to sort out my thinking and add new perspectives to my life.

 

You are one of them. Thank you.

 

- LimA

I share this sentiment!  This place is incredible is it not? 

It affords us the opportunity to share and meet and exchange the flow of ideas and connections.

 

Much Love Mate!  Glad you are here as well!

[Limahong]

10 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

Much Love Mate!

 

Hi silent thunder,

 

Are you Ms/Mr?

Much love too - Babe?

Good night.

 

- LimA

[silent thunder]

 

This is me with my Son a few years ago.

 

 

[Limahong]

7 hours ago, silent thunder said:

This is me with my Son a few years ago.

 

Hi silent thunder,

 

A 1000 apologies Sir!

 

Much love to you Dad!

 

Sir you look endearingly charming. Can I pinch your cheeks? Promise - I will not pinch them off your face.

 

Your Son sure looks a fine lad. Is he a strong/silent thinker?

 

Thank you for the photo.

 

Please be forgiving.

 

- LimA

[silent thunder]

Forgive?  What could there be to forgive?

 

A great conversation, insight and good will. 

These are among the greatest in life.

I'm grateful for the sharing. 

 

I seem blessed beyond reason with my son. 

He has brought shifts to the field of our family...

healing, play, insights, simple presence...

it's humbling and full of love.

 

Much Love Mate!

Creighton

[Limahong]

4 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Simple presence

 

Hi Creighton,

 

You are blessed to have a son who gives joy with his "simple presence".

You have touched on the true essence of Junior's very being. Is he a chip of the old block?

 

4 hours ago, silent thunder said:

I seem blessed beyond reason with my son

 

"Seem"? It is real - you want me to pinch you at your bodily most sensitive? As a guy, I sure know where.

"Beyond reason" - you are the reason.

 

4 hours ago, silent thunder said:

I'm grateful for the sharing

 

"Sharing" - is a 2-way street. Thank you.

 

4 hours ago, silent thunder said:

Much Love Mate!

 

- Anand

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by Limahong
Enhancement of sentence.

[Limahong]

On 7/31/2017 at 0:23 AM, silent thunder said:

sure... moment as in the present now this moment... this is it

all there is and all there ever is... and it is all of it.

 

Hi Creighton,

 

Moment as in the present right now

This moment... this is it Holy Cow

All there is and all there ever is...

And it is all of it - trust me it's IT.

 

IT = MOMENT

 

Treasure IT.

 

- Anand

 

 

Edited August 1, 2017 by Limahong
Enhancement of sentence.

[silent thunder]

Treasure indeed!

 

When present and aware, ordinary seems an illusory concept to me.

There is no such thing as ordinary... the most common gesture, a simple smile, the pouring of a cup of tea... is miraculous.

 

when awake... ordinary seems saturated in miraculous.

 

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, silent thunder said:

There is no such thing as ordinary

 

Hi Creighton,

 

Ordinary = life.

 

- Anand

[Limahong]

On 7/30/2017 at 1:41 AM, silent thunder said:

This--the immediate, everyday, and present experience--is IT, the entire, ultimate point. 

 

Hi Creighton,

 

IT as the 'moment' may be deemed by sceptics to be unreal.

 

Perhaps so - as a moment is too fleeting for the realisation of anything,

 

So can we enlarge 'moment' to 'today' as a more practical/pragmatic unit of analysis on momentary considerations?

 

'Today' still denotes imminence/ immediacy/urgency.

 

Your thoughts please.

 

- Anand

[silent thunder]

Your question reminds me of a moment that really resonated in a documentary I was watching where they followed the Dalai Lama around for a day. 

 

In it, he hinted that the current moment seems like a tiny length of individual time, but that time is an indivisible process that is only divided up by humans the mind.  The now is eternal.

 

I don't recall the question exactly, but the response still resonates with me.

He said.  "Current moment, current second, current day, current year, decade, millenium, epoch."

 

It's all now.  How we divide it up seems to be a function of our human memory and we seem to need to refer to the functional eternal present as past, present and future time and consider it to be separate... but any more, for me... like the universe and things that appear separate from me... where is the division functionally?  It's one continuous soup. 

 

One wave (decade), or one drop of water (moment) may appear to be distinct, yet they are as much a part of the entire ocean as every other wave and drop. 

 

or at least that's how it seems to me right now...

 

Great question to start the day LimA...

Cheers!

Edited August 3, 2017 by silent thunder
change 'is' to 'seems'

[Limahong]

6 hours ago, silent thunder said:

(Dalai Lama) hinted that the current moment seems like a tiny length of individual time, but that time is an indivisible process that is only divided up by humans the mind.  The now is eternal.

 

Hi Creighton,

 

I was previously happy with my loose perception of moment. 

 

Then I thought of 'unit of analysis' in relation to moment and self-questioning started. I met with a road-block.

 

The 'unit of analysis' has no relevance when it comes to my perception of moment - a total misfit.

 

So I let moment expanded into 'today' and I was fairly comfortable with the expansion.

 

Then came Dalai Lama as per the above quote and my ears started to itch; and I did a search on the definitions of moment.

 

The search killed my love for moment. This time it was not road-block but a mental block. Drained of energy I went to sleep,

 

Now I am re-awakened and still in love with moment as (i) Emerson Drive's Moments and (ii) Bobby Goldboro's Today.

 

This is Today -

 

 

Henceforth I will not entertain any questions on moment as the answers are already in this post - MOMENTS and TODAY.

 

- Anand

[Limahong]

On 7/16/2017 at 2:50 AM, Limahong said:

On 7/15/2017 at 5:14 AM, Apeiron&Peiron said:

 

 

On 7/15/2017 at 5:19 AM, Brian said:

 

 

On 7/15/2017 at 6:14 AM, silent thunder said:

 

 

On 7/15/2017 at 11:08 PM, Miffymog said:

 

Hi Guys,

 

On 16 July 2017, I had indicated this -

"To each his/her own? I will not join in at this point in time and spoil the colourful developmental flow. Will do so at an appropriate time later as a budding critical realist. In another thread, I have introduced a little on critical realism and Roy Bhaskar".

 

Apology for the long delay. The 'appropriate time' is now on this thread. This is a short simplified discourse on critical realism.

 

What is critical realism?

Critical realism is based on a philosophy of science most closely associated with the works of Roy Bhaskar. It regards “the objects of knowledge as the structures and mechanisms that generate phenomena; and the knowledge as produced in the social activity of science” (Bhaskar, 1978:25).

 

To the critical realists, objects of knowledge are real; they are neither phenomena nor human constructs imposed upon the phenomena, but “real structures which endure and operate independently of our knowledge, our experience and the conditions which allow us access to them” (ibid.).

 

Critical realism differentiates not only between the world and our experience of it, but between the real, the actual and the empirical, defining these in a special way.

 

The real, the actual and the empirical are the domains of reality as argued by Bhaskar (1978:56). From his arguments - structures/mechanisms, events and experiences constitute the domains of the real, the actual and the empirical of the world respectively as shown in the following table:

 

Three layered domains of the world

Constituents	Domains of the …
	Real	Actual	Empirical
Structures/mechanisms	√	-	-
Events	√	√	-
Experiences	√	√	√

 

When critical realists refer to the real domain, they are of the belief that we do not have privileged knowledge of it but these two aspects are to be noted – (a) the real pertains to whatever exists, natural and social, regardless of our knowledge and understanding of its nature and (b) the real is the realm of objects and their structures and powers. In the social world, the real has also been referred to as the domain of the deep where social structures like mechanisms, institutions, rules, powers and so on are found to exist as independent causal phenomena.

 

The actual domain refers to what happens if and when the causal phenomena in the real are triggered. What happen in the actual (normally) are regular events assumed in closed systems. To the critical realists, such event regularities are extremely unlikely in the social world that is open.

 

The empirical domain is defined as “the domain of experience, and insofar as it refers successfully, it can do so with respect to either the real or the actual though it is contingent (neither necessary nor impossible) whether we know the real or the actual” (Sayer, 2000:12). The encounters in the empirical are recognised through perception or measurement.

 

The above is not easy to digest. It took me quite a while to understand the philosophy of critical realism. Then why am I introducing it at TDB?

 

Because reality is - to each his/her own. Thus - mutual respect at TDB? Each of our life is a road less travelled.

 

A good weekend.

 

- LimA

Edited September 16, 2017 by Limahong
Enhancement of sentence.

[Limahong]

5 hours ago, Limahong said:

Because reality is - to each his/her own.

 

Hi All.

 

Reality - yours or mine?

 

"We need realism to deal with reality" - Slick Rick.

 

 

 

Better Smart Than Sorry: Be A Realist, Not A Hopeless Romantic

Realists view love and the world differently, and here are a few reasons why:

 

We catch the bullsh*t

After you “forget to call” or have suspicious text messages on your phone, we don't listen to the bullish*t excuses as to why your co-worker Susie is asking for work-related help at 1 am.

When things don't add up, we are the first to question it and the last to put up with it.

 

We don't expect you to be Prince Charming because we sure aren't Cinderella

Listen, you don't need to fly us to Paris for a date or buy us expensive jewellery to show your affection. We just want you to watch a movie with us, buy us some food, sit in the silence with us or simply be there when nobody else is. The smallest things mean the world to a “realist.”

 

We want easy, not hard

Despite what movies portray, we don't want a challenging, painful relationship that is apparently supposed to transfer over into “passion.” Unfortunately, life doesn't work that way. Fighting and bickering isn't beautiful, passionate or romantic. It's a pain in the ass. We don't want a relationship where constant fighting is the ultimate sign of romance. We want a relationship as simple as eating pizza in our pyjamas and telling each other our deepest, darkest secrets. This isn't a Hollywood movie set. Rain won't magically come pouring down when I run up to you after three days of not speaking to each other due to a horrid dispute.

 

When things fail, it's not the end of the world

When Mr. Perfect turns out to be the exact opposite of perfection, we don't feel as though the world is crashing down. Most likely, we already saw it coming. We know the end of something before it happens because we can read the signs. We are aware of failures and setbacks, and we don't focus on the negatives in the situation. Clearly, if your relationship isn't working out, then that person was not meant for you.

 

We're already too in love with ourselves to need anybody else

Isn't the saying you have to love yourself before you love somebody else? These words could not be any truer. How can you expect to fall in love with another human being without knowing your own self-worth first? It is impossible. In love, you do not need another human being to complete you. You are already complete on your own. Like I said earlier, it's not that we hate, despise or degrade others who adore love. We're just smart about it. We don't easily put our hearts on the line, and we continue keeping it in one piece, not a million broken ones.

(Elite Daily's official newsletter, The Edge)

 

- LimA

[sagebrush]

wondering if slick rick is related to medusa