February 22, 2010
- J. D. Salinger on the Digital Nature of Original Sin -
“Logical. You’re just giving me a regular, intelligent answer,” Teddy said. “I was trying to help you. You asked me how I get out of the finite dimensions when I feel like it. I certainly don’t use logic when I do it. Logic’s the first thing you have to get rid of.”
“You know that apple Adam ate in the Garden of Eden, referred to in the Bible?” he asked. “You know what was in that apple? Logic. Logic and intellectual stuff. That was all that was in it. So—this is my point—what you have to do is vomit it up if you want to see things as they really are.”
“The trouble is,” Teddy said, “most people don’t want to see things the way they are. They don’t even want to stop getting born and dying all the time. They just want new bodies all the time, instead of stopping and staying with God, where it’s really nice.” He reflected, “I never saw such a bunch of apple-eaters,” he said. He shook his head.
Have you had a chance to read any of his stories?
Comment by ted — February 24, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
Yes, I’ve read 9 Stories (the one the above is from is my favorite) and of course Catcher in the Rye.
Comment by Ian — February 27, 2010 @ 8:48 am
Yeah, I just read catcher in the rye. I want to read the other ones. Glad you are feeling better :)
Comment by Ted — February 27, 2010 @ 10:32 am
Thanks Ted.
Comment by Ian — February 27, 2010 @ 11:38 am
By far my favorite Salinger tale, as well … funny thing, I started to post a comment in your Lady Gaga post about the synchronistic ways of Google Image Search, but after a couple abortive sentences I abandoned the comment and decided to just read some more of your blog instead.
Next I read this post and was like – huh, wonder if he ever read my ‘Apple Eaters’ post? It had been awhile, and I’d forgotten what all went into that one so I went and found it on my site … and was pretty amused to see that it ended on a Google Image Search synchronicity.
Good times!
oh, and here’s a link to the full text of ‘Teddy’ online: http://www.dibache.com/text.asp?id=176&cat=51
Comment by Max — March 4, 2010 @ 10:08 am
Oh man, that blows my mind! Having re-read it now, I remember reading your post last summer, but didn’t remember it when I copied this quote from my friend Jaimin’s blog. And the google image synch connection is a great ending.
Except its not an ending, because as I was re-reading your post, I noticed a reference to a “Don’t Stop Believing” post, which made me laugh out loud because we were just talking about that song in my office this morning. I think this is the universe reminding me to stop being so damn rational. I’ve been feeling kind of stagnant lately, hopefully this helps get things flowing again. Thanks Max. :)
Comment by Ian — March 4, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
Can a rational person ever do something deliberately irrational? How would that work?
Comment by Ted — March 4, 2010 @ 3:30 pm
From within this context, I’d say there’s no such thing as a “rational person”. Merely that rationality is a tool we use, and that “rational people” are people who are exploring the ways this tool can be used.
Besides, I mean rational more like “purely logical” here, rather than “sane”.
Comment by Ian — March 4, 2010 @ 4:42 pm
First, good answer Ian.
Secondly, before I came back here I was on an internet quest to figure out who had demanded that a naked statue in Washington be covered up. I knew it was a Republican politician but I didn’t know who, and for some reason simple searches weren’t getting mer anywhere.
See, a friend on Facebook had posted a link to this story: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/03/04/2010-03-04_its_a_coverup_after_snowlady_gets_frosty_looks.html
And I wanted to say, hey, that reminds me of … whoever the hell it was. I couldnt remember. Finally I figured it out and at 3:40 I posted a link to an article about it as a comment.
Then at 3:42 (my time), Ian responded and I came to check it out. Then I was curious about who Ted was, so I went to his blog, was interested in his post about The Elites, and opened up all the old dates postings to see if any titles grabbed my eye – huh, one about Joe Rogan, who I knew was into DMT and cool shit like that.
http://freerangeorganichumanlives.blogspot.com/2009/11/joe-rogan-is-kindred-spiritphenotype.html
So I went to read that first, but got sidetracked before starting by a link to an article Rogan had written, which was interesting and quick enough to read through that I made it all the way down toward the bottom, past the part where enjoyed his take on magic mushrooms and where I laughed in total understanding as he bemoaned his own inescapable human retardation, and then read:
“Humans are so ridiculous that it’s beyond reason. Reality is more fucked up than bad fiction … No episode of ‘father knows best’ was ever as stupid as John Ashcroft demanding that the breast of a statue be covered up.”
Which of course was the topic I’d been Googling for just before coming back to this blog (where I’d previously been talking about “The Synchronicity of Google” with Ian in another post’s comments).
Sure, it would have been cooler if I’d given up on my search, and THEN found the answer in Rogan’s blog, but it was still neat.
Synchronicity makes me laugh. Thanks guys!
Comment by Max — March 4, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
That’s awesome! You put the request out there and the response came, regardless of whether you were actually searching. It fits in with this theory I was playing with a few months back that technology and the internet and stuff are training our minds in ways were not even aware. Like if all of a sudden the internet went down, and people were so used to being able to get answers they needed simply by asking for them that they suddenly began to tap into all the information that’s available around us at all times. That, in a way, we could look at the internet as a kind of training wheels, a media (in the Marshall McLuhan sense) that compliments and enhances our nervous systems.
Anyway, one last little synch here, the co-worker who’d mentioned “Don’t Stop Believing” earlier today grew up in Rahway, New Jersey (which where the naked snow lady was from).
Comment by Ian — March 4, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
From the point of view of Transactional Analysis, rationality is just a mental state we use from time to time. Unless we’re Mr. Spock, when that’s all we have.
McLuhan would say the Internet is just an extension of a faculty we all have anyway. I guess some of us are more aware of it than others.
You’re thinking of your friend, and the phone rings, and there they are. Is that telepathy? I guess you’re often thinking of your friend, but you don’t remember those time because they’re not significant. The phone ringing makes it significant. The two are linked, but not causally… there are other kinds of link.
I mean, there are things that appear to happen and then stop. But actually they keep happening in the background. That enables synchronicity. I keep rediscovering stuff from my own formative years which didn’t seem significant at the time but does now. (Am I making any sense?)
Comment by speedbird — March 5, 2010 @ 7:49 am
Totally making sense.
Yeah, some people get stuck in mental states, because society or whoever, convinces them that those states are the ONLY way to be, instead of just a good way to be some of the time.
McLuhan’s take on the internet in its current incarnation would be priceless. Sometimes I wish I had a better grip on using the old ouija board… The internet: a source of information that is always on, always available, and does not require our conscious acknowledgment to exist. What kind of growth does such a media encourage within us?
As for the telephone thing, I’ve always thought of it more as sort of an echo backwards in time. I am not always thinking of my friend, and sometimes the phone rings and I just KNOW who it is. If our barriers are down, if our identity as a being here-and-now is allowed to be a little more fluid, perhaps we can allow information to reach us in such a manner.
I’d say everything’s happening all the time, we just only interact with a part of it at any given time. And the stuff from the formative years that’s popping up now is being called up by what’s happening in the present, assuming we are paying attention to the present.
At least, that’s how I look at things in theory. In practice, not so easy…
Comment by Ian — March 5, 2010 @ 9:35 am
Speedbird, there is such a thing as “skin conductance” that can be measured scientifically and has been tested by Rupert Sheldrake. When somebody stares at you, you get this electricity on your skin. I am very sensitive to that. I also get it when people are thinking about me.
So to me Telephone telepathy fits in with that. I also have e-mail telepathy. I can very often tell when an e-mail arrives from someone I am expecting. I don’t hear a ring in that case I just get a feeling.
Its a non-local phenomenon, with a physical manifestation.
Comment by Ted — March 5, 2010 @ 12:36 pm
Max, that is quite a story! I haven’t experienced any strong synchronicity lately, it kind of weird. I miss it. I never experience deja vu either, not since i was a little kid.
Comment by Ted — March 5, 2010 @ 12:38 pm
What I am saying is, I don’t think thinking about some one and then they call you is synchronicity. I think that’s psychic phenomenon. I think you both connect mentally through a non local field and then one decides to call the other.
Comment by Ted — March 5, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
or maybe it is… going back to the etymology of the word…you are in sync with each other…that makes sense.
If you get really close to a person your hearts begin to beat in sync and your brain waves become entrained, when that happens you can sometimes read each others thoughts.
Comment by Ted — March 5, 2010 @ 12:51 pm
“What we have found is that if you place two different people at a distance and put a circular magnetic field around both, and you make sure they are connected to the same computer so they get the same stimulation, then if you flash a light in one person’s eye the person in the other room receiving just the magnetic field will show changes in their brain as if they saw the flash of light. We think that’s tremendous because it may be the first macro demonstration of a quantum connection, or so-called quantum entanglement. If true, then there’s another way of potential communication that may have physical applications, for example, in space travel.”
Comment by Ian — March 5, 2010 @ 1:02 pm
But to stick with the mind part, this is the beauty and power of defining the mind as regulatory because when it is embodied you can actually get to know your body, not just the skull part of your brain, but your whole extended nervous system. And I actually use the brain to refer to that extended nervous system. But also relationally, because the mind is a process that is both embodied and it is relational. So you never think in single skull or single body terms. We are all interconnected in this deep, profound way. Although when we just look on the surface we think we have these separate selves when in fact energy and information flow doesn’t recognize the limitation of a body as a boundary. It flows throughout all our interconnectedness and then you see that fitting with the contemplative and spiritual view of the oneness of everything. And so this is basically a scientific perspective on that deeper truth that we are all interconnected when you look at energy and information flow being both embodied and relational.
(read the transcript)
Comment by Ian — March 5, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
>> Yeah, some people get stuck in mental states, because society or whoever, convinces them that those states are the ONLY way to be, instead of just a good way to be some of the time.
Indeed!
Ted – Sheldrake’s interesting; I’ve never been sure what to make of him. But definitely interesting! The stuff he talks about can’t be dismissed trivially. You might disagree with his methods or his theories or just his attitude, but you have to confront him properly. (Bit like Richard Dawkins ;D)
Synchronicity is a massive subject. Two related things happen… one causes the other? Or are both caused by one thing (the engineer’s way)? Or do they arise together (my favourite)? Or are they really one event (entanglement)? What about causality, the time-order of cause and effect (whatever ‘time’ is)? For an ancient Roman, an omen was just something that happened before its cause. The eagle catching the snake caused nothing; but it was caused by something that would happen later. In physics, I learned recently that causality comes first; from that (apparently) you can deduce the existence of a cosmic speed limit, which may be the speed of light. Or maybe not. And for light, everything happens at once: emission and absorbtion are simultaneous. My screen is emitting light only because it’s being absorbed… trippy.
And then there’s the teapot thing.
Weird shit like that (no, not quite like that, that’s going waaay beyond the call of duty, enormous kudos Max!) tends to happen to me when I’m utterly drunk. In fact alcohol is my drug of choice for weird shit experiences. Entheogenic enough for me thank you very much. Yes, I have definitely done telepathy when bladdered. My superpower (we all have one) is the ability to see in the dark. Many people can fall over without spilling their drink, and can find their way home safely from any situation (we used to call it the ‘catching the Beer Taxi’). I knew a guy who could walk on water…
>> I’d say everything’s happening all the time, we just only interact with a part of it at any given time. And the stuff from the formative years that’s popping up now is being called up by what’s happening in the present, assuming we are paying attention to the present.
This is deep. I must go and open another tinnie.
Comment by speedbird — March 5, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
Well, I think this:
“>> I’d say everything’s happening all the time, we just only interact with a part of it at any given time. And the stuff from the formative years that’s popping up now is being called up by what’s happening in the present, assuming we are paying attention to the present.”
is pretty much the same thing as this:
“My screen is emitting light only because it’s being absorbed… trippy.”
in my opinion. It’s a case of thinking poetically, of causality taking on a sort of metaphoric way of occurring, rather than our usually assumed linear fashion. I don’t think causality isn’t true, so much as we simply aren’t defining it properly, taking a sort of one-sided view of a many sided thing. And then when we find another view of it, we can’t wrap our heads around the fact that they can BOTH be true AT THE SAME TIME. We seem to think of truth as singular, which I guess it is, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be multiple things at the same time as well. Its only language that seems to chop things up like that, not the things themselves. They remain true in all their different ways, it just, if we can’t understand it, we don’t experience it… Our mind regulates that bit of information away, simply another “road less traveled”.
And I second you on the alcohol thing. I think it’s (and all drugs and, in a way, meditation too) how we break down filters, a way for us to draw energy out of barriers we usually keep in place, allowing some of that strange, other-worldly light into the frame of awareness.
Dunno what my superpower is (certainly not walking on water, I and my muddy jeans can promise you that!) but I’ve recently (in the past few years) gotten to the point where, no matter how much I drink, SOME part of me stays totally sober. This is new for me, as I remember in college being 100% drunk when drunk. Not any more, there’s a stability I’ve somehow tapped into. Its very strange. If we do ever meet, speedbird, I will certainly have to buy you a beer (or several). :)
Comment by Ian — March 5, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
Speedbird,
You must tell us more about the guy that can walk on water! Plus, what is a “tinnie”?
Ian, when did you first notice that a part of you never gets drunk?
Ted
Comment by Ted Heistman — March 5, 2010 @ 6:08 pm
Tinnie = can of beer (originally Australian slang, perhaps?)
*
Friend of mine was riding his bicycle while we were all walking. So he was doing circles round us and we got really annoyed and tried to chase him into the river. He rode through this big bush that was overhanging the water. We went back the next day and found the bush with a big bicycle-shaped hole in it. And honestly, there was a set of tyretracks that left the riverbank at the water’s edge and came back on again the other side of the bush. It was the most amazing thing…
Comment by speedbird — March 6, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
@ Ted:
It’s been a few years now, since after I stopped going to therapy (though who knows if that had anything to do with it?)
@speedbird:
Awesome story! Even Jesus never rode a bike on water! :)
Comment by Ian — March 6, 2010 @ 5:21 pm
A tinnie of Faster’s? Bicycle Jesus, that’s awesome!
Ian,
I was wondering because the same thing happens to me. I thought it was related to meditation. I think its some type whatayacallit. Like what do you call those things Buddhists get when they can do miracles?
Comment by Ted — March 6, 2010 @ 8:14 pm
I mean Fosters!
Comment by Ted — March 6, 2010 @ 8:15 pm
http://www.mountmadonna.org/yoga/talks/twb9911.html
Comment by Ted — March 6, 2010 @ 10:15 pm
You know, it might be related to meditation. I did begin meditating around that time as well! I don’t know if it’s considered a power (doubt it though, probably more just a side effect) or whether its related to the witness consciousness (though maybe?) but I do know it’s a nice thing.
Though it has caused me to think I was not drunk on several occasions when, upon later reflection, I very clearly WAS drunk, so I guess its got its downside too…
Comment by Ian — March 8, 2010 @ 12:05 pm
being drunk is temporarily fucking your brain up. So if part of you doesn’t get drunk, its a non physical part of consciousness. mind independant of your brain.
anyway, I know exactly what you mean, because I have it too. Its the witness. that’s what it does. It witnesses you doing… often… stupid shit.
I think after you develop it more, it stays awake while you sleep. Deepak Chopra has that.
Comment by Ted Heistman — March 8, 2010 @ 12:30 pm
Hmm, that’s interesting. Weird to think of “the witness” as both something the self can inhabit, and something that can watch the other parts of the self doing stupid shit. :)
Really gets rid of the idea that self is any certain thing, if it can change like that…
Comment by Ian — March 8, 2010 @ 1:33 pm
Alcohol shuts down big chunks of the brain. If you do it right, it’s the bits that get in the way. I mean, they’re all useful for day-to-day survival, it’s just sometimes they need to get drunk…
Comment by speedbird — March 8, 2010 @ 1:56 pm
That’s a REALLY good way of putting it.
Comment by Ian — March 8, 2010 @ 2:45 pm
Well, consciousness is self awareness. Self awareness implies duality. Its awareness of awareness. So its always a duality.
I don’t like the idea of being subsumed. I think that’s a theological error. I have serious doubts that enlightenment equals extinction, like a rain drop entering the sea. What’s so great about that?
It doesn’t tell the whole story. I think its more like being aware of being a raindrop and the sea at the same time.
I think we have seven chakras for a reason. They all need to be balanced. The root and the crown are polar opposites. The root is Separation and he Crown is unity.
Comment by Ted — March 8, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
From what I’ve heard, the sea enters the raindrop as well. Just no one really talks about that part of it…
I think there might be a fundamental mis-interpretation in your understanding of the end of a permanent self. Not that I think you’re wrong, but that there’s something you’re interpreting to mean one thing, when in fact it means another. I believe your fears of extinction are well based, but I think that what happens at that point is not really that kind of extinction, that maybe there’s a translation problem somewhere. Then again, I’ve not experienced it myself, so who am I to say? Just a thought from my limited perspective and opinion.
The thing is, I don’t think anything is really lost at that point, more that something is regained…
Comment by Ian — March 8, 2010 @ 3:48 pm
Dogen called it the moon in a dewdrop, if I’m not mistaken. The whole moon is contained in the dewdrop, even thought the actual moon itself obviously couldn’t fit in a dewdrop.
Comment by Ian — March 8, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
Dude,
I am never going to be a Buddhist. I just have to face the facts. I am a HARDCORE anarchist. I went to a Shambala Buddhist center today listened to some guy, was fairly impressed looked it up on wikipedia and dug up all kinds of muck in about five minutes, serious scandals, rape, murder, cocaine, etc.
I am convinced that every spiritual organization is totally corrupt at the top. There is no lineage. Its all a bunch of Satan worshippers at the top of ALL leadership.
Buddhism is no different than the Vatican or the Mormons, or Scientology for that matter. The Leaders all rape people. Its a manifestation of the Spiritual rape that goes on in these organizations at all levels.
its a trap. WE ARE ALL POWERFUL SPIRITUAL BEINGS!!! FUCK HIERARCHY!!
Comment by Ted — March 9, 2010 @ 1:55 am
Strong views. But then I feel much the same about Wikipedia… ;-)
Comment by speedbird — March 9, 2010 @ 8:37 am
Well, I have nothing to add to that. Clearly we have a difference of opinion.
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 9:40 am
Love the discussions spawned on this blog.
The talk about alcohol shutting down bits of the brain very much reminds me of Aldous Huxley, who believed that the brains primary function was a “reducing valve,” limiting our experience of reality to a usefully narrow trickle. LSD and other such drugs can help blow open the “doors of perception” and let it all come flooding in … here’s some guy’s blog where a lot of Huxley’s thoughts on this are brought together:
http://www.timboucher.com/journal/2004/08/20/brain-as-reducing-valve/
Which may tie into the “witness consciousness” being discussed earlier – I know the first time I did mushrooms, I was frustrated that there was still this voice of reason in the back of my head making sense of my situation and perceptions, according to the ways I’d always made sense of reality, filtering my experience through a framework I found dubious. (So I ate the rest of the bag in a deliberate effort to overwhelm that observer/frameworker … that did the trick, and I melted).
Ted – I think there is plenty of room to explore any spiritual or religious system apart from the hierarchy – every tradition has a mystical side which I think you would find much more amenable to your framework than the forms that are cemented in structure, tradition, and lineage of authority. Also, don’t be too quick to judge the ideas of a system by the errors of its practitioners – its still fucked up crazy apes trying to find some kind of meaning or truth through the system – and even if they succeed in that quest, they’re still limited beings just as flawed as the most ignorant among us.
Comment by Max — March 9, 2010 @ 11:01 am
They aren’t flawed, Max they are EVIL. They know wat they are doing.
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 11:26 am
I posted a bunch of links that didn’t make it through the spam filter, but basically all this institutions-The Catholic Church, Mormonism, Buddhism, they are all based on Vampirism with Satanic Tantric rituals at the top that are revealed only to higher initiates.
there is no secret occult knowledge that is good. All good things are freely available to everyone.
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 11:29 am
I posted it on my blog
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 11:33 am
Ted said “All good things are freely available to everyone.”
- that, I most certainly agree with. Perhaps the best of any religion is that which helps people come to this realization – many people require some help to find the confidence to accept that “the kingdom of heaven is within” …
(as well as “free your mind, and your ass will follow,” come to think of it … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiqmEibSY0I)
Comment by Max — March 9, 2010 @ 11:35 am
But the fact remains Max, that Vampires exist. One of their favorite foods is spiritual devotion. So that’s not the kind of “help” people need. The link I posted on Tantric practices called the “Tantric Sacrifice of the Female” is a sophisticated form of vampirism. Literally Consuming the Spritual essence of young girls.
So that may be all well and good, to some low level practitioner that never makes it to the inner circle. But the fact is these are top down hierarchical organizations. So all teaching ultimately comes down from the vampires. As you rise in leadership you get let in on more and more of the truth until you get to the top and then you come to what most people would see as straight up Satanism.
There is no way to reform these top down institutions from below.
Comment by Ted — March 9, 2010 @ 11:46 am
Ted, I won’t have you going off on one of your Satanic Vampire Conspiracy theory rants here, please do not continue. I’ve talked with you about this before and you know that we do not agree on this. Please keep this kind of thing on your blog.
I usually don’t mind when the comments go away from the main topic of the post, but I personally don’t find this type of discussion useful or profitable in any way, and I am asking that such discussions do not continue here.
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
Max, this comment is more in line with my feelings on the matter:
And I find it hilarious that you drop a link to Tim Boucher’s blog as “some guy’s blog”. Not that you’d have any reason to know this, but Tim’s blog was where Ted, Speedbird, and I first met, and Tim was (and still is) a big influence in my starting my own blog. :)
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 12:19 pm
Perhaps the upper echelons of human power structures are, indeed, controlled by psychic vampires – but in my understanding, the Powers are themselves pawns, pieces of patterns far, far beyond their understanding or control.
Even if truly evil humans took over the top level of everything, with nothing above them, the inescapable Law of Unintended Consequences still would leave plenty of room for love and goodness to grow in spite of their worse intentions.
You know, the whole “there is a crack in everything / that’s how the light get in.”
Of course, light = life = chaos = Lucifer (light bringer) etc … so is it good or evil? How we view the intentions of unknowable forces beyond our grasp – benevolent, malevolent, indifferent, etc – is largely a matter of personal inclination that has little to do with reason or facts. You can, and will, see angels or demons everywhere you look for either of them.
OK I need to work and stop rambling.
Comment by Max — March 9, 2010 @ 12:34 pm
oops, I hadn’t seen the request so cease and desist the vampire talk, it wasn’t live when I started rambling.
Wow. It is hilarious, and wonderful, that the Boucher blog is connected to all three of you – I found him just by a quick Googling for “aldous reducing valve” so I could find some Huxley quotes to send ya’ll toward.
The Google synchronicity continues!
Comment by Max — March 9, 2010 @ 12:39 pm
No worries Max.
I agree with you on this as well, but I know that Ted feels differently. I simply don’t believe that anyone has that kind of control over the way everything unfolds while he does.
I respect that Ted feels differently, but I know he and I can simply argue back and forth over this without anything changing. I don’t want to change my opinion to agree with him, and I know that he feels the same way about my position on the matter. I do usually enjoy his comments and the fact that his views differ from mine on some things, but when it comes to this topic, I think we’ve both got too much invested in our own views for a discussion to bear much fruit.
I simply think that, to the extent that evil does exist, it is by its very nature limited, whereas good is not because good accepts evil, whereas evil does not accept good.
And that being able to look evil in face without fear severely limits its powers.
And that we need people to try these things (such as setting up an organization like Shambala) and have them work out in a good way. Is it easy? No. Is it even possible? Who knows, but I certainly don’t want to think that it isn’t. Because then evil wins without my even trying.
Meanwhile, the google synchronicities do indeed continue, although something must also be said for Mr. Boucher’s SEO abilities. :)
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
Oh, and this is a particularly beautiful way of phrasing it:
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
perhaps his SEO basics are all in line, but man, the way I made the connection to Aldous, decided to search for a string of text that returned Boucher’s site, choose that link from among the top results, and then posted a link to his blog into a conversation that had already included weird google coincidences, being held with three people who’d first met at his blog … absolutely delightful!
PS – you mentioned that “And that being able to look evil in face without fear severely limits its powers.” – in a tangent I erased without posting, I made the same observation with a jokey reference to Freddy Kruger in the “Dream Master” sequel … ["I don't believe in you!" the girl screamed; then his claws pass right through her without causing harm ... ] lol …
Comment by Max — March 9, 2010 @ 1:28 pm
Ian,
To be fair I never said all these things that you are comcluding here that evil always wins and so forth that its all powerful and in control of everything and everybody.
All these evil institutions are actually failing and crumbling away. Information is too freely available, to keep people in the dark.
But they rely on people supporting them through belief, assent, etc. Blind faith void of critical analysis.
Any way Dude these people are always nervous around me. I see through them. Eventually most people will be like me in relation to these people and they will have zero power over anyone.
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 1:38 pm
So essentially you are saying “And that being able to look evil in face without fear severely limits its powers” but you don’t want to look it in the face.
I looked it in the face yesturday. I looked at a guy in one of these Lineages and he couldn’t meet my gaze. As soon as I got home within five minutes I knew why.
I wasn’t there to stir up trouble, I was there to meditate. I was initially attracted to them becausse they don’t wear fancy robes. But the Leadership structure is the same.
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 1:43 pm
Let me put it this way:
What Spritual authority did Buddha appeal to?
He didn’t. So what does that say? To me at says there is no such thing as “spiritual authority” all these lineages are corrupt. We can all be Buddha on our own without crying “tears of devotion” to some Tibetan aristocrat or guru, just because he claims to be the reincarnation of some big shot in the past.
That’s all Buddhism is based on at the top leadership levels.
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 2:02 pm
Ted, to be fair, I didn’t say you said those things, I was merely stating my opinion. But I can see how it could be taken that what I was saying was meant as a rebuttal of your position rather than a statement of my own position, and I can say that I didn’t mean it that way.
I appreciate that you’ve toned down the level of your argument, and like I said, I do appreciate your point of view. We can certainly keep the discussion going so long as it doesn’t devolve to sweeping generalizations of hierarchical organizations.
I think what you’re talking about is much more helpful when looked at as a metaphor. Many people in power who don’t believe they should be in power (and by “believe they should be in power” I mean that they have an understanding of the heavy responsibility required to wield power properly, and that power over others is, when looked at honestly, not something all that desirable). If they don’t have a good understanding of their position, then they’ll rely on keeping other people weak in order to not feel threatened in their power. This can take the form of a sort of emotional vampirism, but is not really any different than a silverback gorilla bellowing and pounding its chest to intimidate a rival. Its just good and evil don’t enter into it for the gorilla, but they do for us, so we can fuck up things up a lot more than the gorilla can.
As far as meeting your eyes, given that this guy was an authority figure, and given your repeatedly stated dislike of authority figures, I could see that maybe his sensing that might have had something to with him not meeting your eyes. Doesn’t necessarily mean he’s off raping little girls on the weekend, it just means he’s not too secure in his position. But hey, lots of people can’t hold eye contact, and they can’t all be satanic vampire child rapists.
This, however, I take as sort of a personal assault on me, which doesn’t really seem warranted. But actually, in one sense, you’re right, I don’t want to look at evil directly. But that’s because I don’t believe in evil as a distinct thing. I think it bleeds to often into goodness (or at least good intent) around the edges, and that to focus on only the evil is actually to grow that evil in a way you don’t intend. Instead, I prefer to focus on the good, and see how I can address myself to that goodness in everyone. Doing so can make evil suddenly unnecessary, and I personally believe this is the correct way (for me) to look evil in the face. With love, because I have taken the time to find some goodness attached to it.
But no, I’m not running around doing this, and yes, this is mainly a theory, an opinion. I’m willing to admit that, just as I’m willing to admit that you believe differently. And again, I don’t mean to imply that you’ve ever stated the opposite of this, I am simply stating my own opinion on the matter. If it seems like I’m saying you claim the opposite, its only because our views differ so greatly on this matter. :)
A few things here:
1) You are now appealing to the Buddha as a spiritual authority. Maybe that’s because I clearly respect him as one and you’re trying to address the issue from my viewpoint. If so, I respect you attempt.
2) However, the Buddha did have spiritual authorities. He left home and studied under one teacher. He mastered everything that teacher had to offer, and felt he needed more. He went and studied under another teacher, mastered everything that teacher had to offer, and felt that he needed more.
3) Then he went and studied with a group of ascetics, people who very clearly had a belief system they followed that was probably based on someone’s teaching at some point. Buddha became the leader of this group because of his severe asceticism, but then abandoned this because he felt he needed more.
That makes three schools of thought, three authority systems, that Buddha went through from beginning to end before he could resolve the matter enough to seek on his own. If Buddha had to go through two teachers and the building and dissolving his own community before he had a good enough grasp on what he wanted and what wasn’t enough, I don’t think we have any right to assume that we don’t need to do at least that much.
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 3:06 pm
And Max, its good having you around here, these synchronicites are wonderful. And I completely agree with you on the sentiment behind the Freddy Kruger quote:
Which I can say repeatedly, but my problem seems to be putting myself within reach of those claws to test out my theories.
Granted, I don’t know if that’s actually needed, I like to think the universe puts us where it needs us. If it ever needs me to stand there and get slashed at by nightmares, I’m sure it’ll arrange to put me in front of one when it thinks I’m ready for it. I don’t want to fuck things up by getting in the way! :)
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 3:11 pm
Ian,
Its really not that complicated. In order to be a teacher in Shambala Buddhism you need to take these vows, and classes and then there is this seminary you have to go to and then you get to the secret esoteric teachings. Which is Tantra, which is sex magic. I linked to what it involves. It involves something that any normal decent human being would call sexual abuse of young girls.
Not reading my link, while claiming to argue against me is akin to a technique of covering your ears and saying “lalalalalalala I can’t hear you.”
I didn’t bomb you with links all were straigt the the point. But the fact is this dude I saw yesturday went the seminary and became privvy the the secret tantric shit. Its right on their website, what you have to do to rise through the ranks.
So the core teaching is a secret kept from the vast majority of the low level people.
The coke snorting, philandering and alcaholism by CHOGYAM TRUNGPA is all documented. The fact that is successor had unprotected gay buttsex with his follwers after he knew he was HIV positive is well documented also.
This teacher guy that was nervous around me, was one degree of seperation of all this stuff. He is a direct muckity muck from the lineage.
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 3:28 pm
This is the secret shit:
Vajrayana
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
The thing is Ted, I already about know all this.
And I did look through your links, I just didn’t post them here since you went and put them on your site and since I don’t agree with them.
The Tibet Myth isn’t anything new, and American Buddha quite frankly hurts my eyes too much to read in depth.
I’ve already looked at and dismissed “The Shadow of the Dalai Lama” on personal grounds. To me, it seems like too much of a smear campaign. Plus, I’ve read “Stick Out Your Tongue” by a Chinese author who toured Tibet which said the same things from a more balanced viewpoint. I don’t deny that there were bad practices in Tibet at some point. This doesn’t mean that all Tibetan Buddhist are child rapists. Knives can be used to kill people, it doesn’t mean everyone who owns a knife is a murderer.
I’d also like to point out that you’re using criticism against the Dalai Lama as evidence against Shambala, even though these are two entirely different lineages and organizations.
And on the other hand, please don’t twist this to say that I am defending Shambala. I never actually said anything in defense of them specifically, I said I think the attempt to make an organization that helps and supports and carries on spiritual seeking is a good thing, and a hard thing to do well. I have no respect for people who only point out others errors without trying to undertake the same attempts they’re criticizing.
Basically, if you’d don’t like hierarchical organizations, fine. No one ever said you have to. If you don’t like Buddhism, fine, no one’s making you follow it. If you think the best spiritual path for you is going solo, also perfectly fine. I wish you luck.
But I keep feeling like we’re missing the point somewhere. Where did all the even come from? I never said anything about Tibet, Shambala, Tantricism or any of this, it all came from you. Why did you bring all this up in the first place?
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
Vajrayana is NOT “the secret shit”. Its a combination of Indian tantric yoga (mainly mantra and visualization) with Buddhism. It existed in India at some point, spread to Tibet and mixed with the Bon tradition to make what constitutes Tibetan Buddhism, and can also be found in Japan as Shingon Buddhism.
For a good explanation of Vajrayana practice, check these:
BG 111: Japanese Shingon: The True Word School
BG 112: Vajrayana in Plain English
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 3:59 pm
The actual “Secret Shit” can seriously fuck you up if you don’t do it correctly. I’ve known people (including women) who’ve been seriously hurt by not having correct instruction and intent when undertaking some of this stuff. Its secret cause its dangerous, not because its some secret sex cult good-old-boys club.
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 4:03 pm
Yeah, but you just know the outer stuff. Are you an initiate into it? You deny that there are esoteric teachings only available to initiates?
Oh, come on. How many fricken Lamas are there? We are talking about a Tiny elite among a very small nation, most of which were illiterate sefs 50 years ago.
You really think good can come from organizations ruled top down by people with secret occult initiation and history of sexual impropriety? I mean come on? “crazy wisdom?”
This is like the SS or the Mafia or Gustapo.
The fact is people like doing what authority figures tell them to do, jumping through hooops and eventually becoming an insider. That’s what Buddhism seems to be based on to me. People prefer it to figuring things out on their own, so this perpetuates the abuse.
We are all co-creators of these structures and people could wthdraw assent to them at any time in which case they would collapse. But they are perpetuated because people are willing to compromise.
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 4:17 pm
As I said above, that’s fine. I don’t agree, but that’s fine. Why can’t I disagree with you on this?
And so what happens when someone does figure it out “on their own”? A) Do you know anyone who’s done this? and B) What do they do after this?
And you haven’t answered my question…:
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 4:23 pm
Well that would be really convenient Ian. These Coke snorting AIDS spreading profligates, (With a Lineage recognized by other Buddhist Muckety mucks as perfectly legit) know best and want to protect everyone and thats why they rule under a veil of secrecy.
I guess I just brought it up because we were talking about meditation it seems like you get a lot out of it and I went to this thing and wanted to get more serious about meditation and just googled them and uncovered all this corruption. its not fake corruption its real.
I am wary of this stuff but also a sincere spiritual seeker. I went with my Aunt who is the same way. She was once a moonie. Same abuiive dynamic.
Its really wide spread this abusiive dynamic. Even Ken wilbur and Alex grey came under the spell of Da Free John, a totally corrupt guru.
This is part and parcel with this path, it really seems to me.
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 4:27 pm
Ian,
what if lots of people figure out everything pretty much on their own because there isn’t as much to figure out as we think?
maybe that’s the hook? We think these high up spiritual teachers know all this shit we don’t and than it turns out they just want lots of pussy, money and power.
They really don’t know Jack. What if no one knows any more than you already do tight now?
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 4:32 pm
Please explain where I said this, or what you’re even responding to by saying this.
I never said it was fake, in fact, I specifically said I was NOT defending them.
This I agree with 100%. Have you read Saint’s and Psychopaths by Bill Hamilton? Check it out here if not.
At the same time, not 100% of organization are corrupt. I simply will not allow it to be said on my blog that anything is 100% one way. I don’t believe the world works this way. In fact, when we believe something is 100% a certain way, its probably in our best interest to seek out the opposite of what we believe because we’re probably missing something.
Then why bother seeking? That’s a false consolation and an excuse for laziness.
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 4:46 pm
But we weren’t talking about meditation at the time. We were talking about theories and definitions of the witness:
Any synchronicity. And beer. :)
But then somehow it turned into bashing Tibetan Buddhism. :(
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
No, dude its not laziness. Its bravely facing an unknown frontier with no one to show you the way. Because anyone who says they know the way turns out to have been a liar in the final analysis. unluess they were completely honest, in which case they freely shared what they knew and we stand on the shoulders of giants. But still there is the unknown.
Also I am not bashing. I just think rape is bad. None of my accusations were baselss.
I mean come on dude, the Last head honcho right behind the Current leader of Shambala raped his students and knowingly gave them AIDS. I mean that is a serious scandal not far back at all.
All I was doing was making an attempt to learn under these people. The Universe gave me an answer.
Anyway I won’t I tink we both want the same thing.
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 4:59 pm
I think we both want the same thing. But I just think we are farther ahead maybe than we think, because no one really knows anything for sure.
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 5:01 pm
That’s fine. I’m not exactly studying under Shambala either, for some of those very reasons. As I’ve repeatedly said, I am not defending them.
But your last comment, as much as I respect your intent, points out something I have a problem with (and something I wrestle with myself). If no one knows anything for sure, how can we be in anyway “ahead”? If there’s an ability to be “ahead” then there must be people who are also “ahead” of us from whom we can learn. Right?
And on the other hand, how do we know we’re not going in the wrong direction? It’s certainly not an impossibility.
Again, I am not saying anything about Shambala, I respect your decision not to study under them. I don’t think there’s any need to go any further into that here.
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 5:11 pm
We aren’t “ahead” in terms of other people. We are ahead in terms of all these Gurus and so forth, holding out this carrot of enlightenment. i.e. equal to them.
We may even be ahead of Buddha, as he lived thousands of years ago and was ignorant of scientific knowledge we view as commonplace.
You seem nervous about owning your own power of discernment. I am not criticizing you, thats part of life. I am just finding that obedience to Spiritual authority figues is a false hope to remedying the situation.
Comment by ted — March 9, 2010 @ 5:22 pm
Which is something I have not made a judgment on yet, myself. I agree with you when it comes to the terms you’re using, I just don’t think they apply to all teachers. Where they do, you’re right, where they don’t, I disagree.
I am, no secret there. :)
Comment by Ian — March 9, 2010 @ 5:33 pm