<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0"> <channel> <title>Science and Meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_category?p_l_id=&amp;mbCategoryId=4021472</link> <description /> <pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2014 02:22:10 GMT</pubDate> <dc:date>2014-10-19T02:22:10Z</dc:date> <item> <title>RE: Amygdala bliss to dark night</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5604339</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;John:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I wonder if I could ask him to stop by the forum and explain ?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Ultimately that would be the best, since he can give more details or point to other studies that back him up.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2014 04:21:31 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5604339</guid> <dc:creator>Richard Zen</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-14T04:21:31Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Amygdala bliss to dark night</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5604335</link> <description>That&amp;#039;s the Jimmy, yes. I didn&amp;#039;t want to dig through his videos again to find the exact bit but you&amp;#039;ve got it there. Murphy says that prolonged intense stimulation of the happy side can cause a spillover of neural activity into the dark side so I wonder if there is any other confirmatory work on this ?&lt;br /&gt;He also says, if I remember, eventually this spillover can stop leaving a permanent enhanced connection tot he happy side. &lt;br /&gt;I wonder if I could ask him to stop by the forum and explain ?</description> <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2014 04:13:37 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5604335</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-14T04:13:37Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Amygdala bliss to dark night</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5604322</link> <description>This might be the one you&amp;#039;re thinking of:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="https&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;youtube&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;watch&amp;#x3f;v&amp;#x3d;zqrpKUTMXgY"&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqrpKUTMXgY&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Wikipedia:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;en&amp;#x2e;wikipedia&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;wiki&amp;#x2f;Amygdala&amp;#x23;Hemispheric_specializations"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala#Hemispheric_specializations&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #252525"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;There are functional differences between the right and left amygdala. In one study, electrical stimulations of the right amygdala induced negative emotions, especially fear and sadness. In contrast, stimulation of the left amygdala was able to induce either pleasant (happiness) or unpleasant (fear, anxiety, sadness) emotions.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #252525"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; Other evidence suggests that the left amygdala plays a role in the brain&amp;#039;s reward system.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description> <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2014 02:55:32 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5604322</guid> <dc:creator>Richard Zen</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-14T02:55:32Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Amygdala bliss to dark night</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5604049</link> <description>I don&amp;#039;t know if it&amp;#039;s somehow related to meditation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I just remember Brene Brown saying that there are studies showing that joyful events are likely to lead to relapses of depression, alcoholism etc.&lt;br /&gt;Can&amp;#039;t have one without the other obviously.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2014 11:39:28 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5604049</guid> <dc:creator>bernd the broter</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-13T11:39:28Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>Amygdala bliss to dark night</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5603635</link> <description>Watching a video on the neuroscience of meditation, I see an explanation that the amygdala has two sides, one dealing with happiness and one dealing with fear. If the stimulation of the happiness side becomes intense enough then the activity spills over to the other side and activates fear. This is supposed to be the origin of the cycles of bliss and dark night.&lt;br /&gt;Is this a well known explanation ?</description> <pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2014 20:57:30 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5603635</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-12T20:57:30Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5600915</link> <description>A being is an intertwined collection of events.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;By being interconnected, these action-chains appear to the scientist as electromagnetic fields.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;A body, being created by events that connect over time, has so much electromagnectic energy that it has a large field.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Without a body, the energy, or rather the events that are in motion, with momentum, continue to be connected events that appear to the scientists as an electromagnetic field without an apparent cause, or in other words, as a field with no visible body.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In what ways can these kinds of energy bodies(event-strings) manifest themselves to the ignorant and superstitious when it has been proven that the body detects electromagnetic fields/waves/leptons?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;They can be percieved with intruments.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Everything observed must be explained if it can be said that we truly Understand the nature of Maya, if we want to claim that we Understand our Science.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2014 05:27:01 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5600915</guid> <dc:creator>Jeremy May</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-08T05:27:01Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Sam Harris: An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5599359</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Simon T.:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I hope also that he will deal with the stages of insight in his book. If we are to set hundred of thousand of people on this path without providing them the elbow room to deal with the side effects as participant of a society,  it will get busy in the psychiatric wards. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;He doesn&amp;#039;t, but he, unlike many outside the pragmatic &amp;#034;hard core&amp;#034; scene, at least acknowledges the dark side. For example, he specifically makes reference to Willoughby Britton.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:45:01 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5599359</guid> <dc:creator>Tee P Kay</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-05T21:45:01Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Sam Harris: An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5599354</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;chris .:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;\As a neuroscientist (I think he has his Masters)...&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Just a point of info, but according to Wikipedia, he has a Doctorate.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2014 21:43:11 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5599354</guid> <dc:creator>Tee P Kay</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-05T21:43:11Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: My Dream of a New Scientific Journal</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5596720</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;it seems to be obssessed with evaluating the effects of 8 week MBSR courses on (fill in the blank: anxiety, depression, test scores, OCD, compassion, flu, etc.). The problem is the first 8 weeks are often a honeymoon period and tell you very little about what to expect down the road.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;This is very true (and from the point of non-beginner practice, unfortunate). Though there are good reasons for that: MBSR is very much standardized and has a lot of academic research backing; you can compare with the studies already published; given its reputation in completely secular circles, it is easy to get people to participate.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2014 07:28:06 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5596720</guid> <dc:creator>Eudoxos .</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-10-03T07:28:06Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593843</link> <description>&amp;#034;Another example would be &amp;#034;Data&amp;#034; from Star Trek The Next Generation.  He is an android, but is he sentient?&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Well, what about approaching it like this -&lt;br /&gt;We don&amp;#039;t seen Data the droid, what we see is a product of our neurons. As our neurons are a part of our life form everything, our perceptions, produced by them is an aspect of ourselves and as such Data is merely an aspect of our own sentience. If there is anything beyond that, it is not accessible. &lt;br /&gt;So, basically, there is no artificial intelligence, only further iterations and extensions of our own - and we are alive.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I spent some time reading through Donald Hoffman&amp;#039;s papers - he would hold that we cannot even grasp the true nature of our neurons - they are merely sensory representations of something else. I don&amp;#039;t know where &lt;em&gt;that&lt;/em&gt; leaves the issue.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:20:14 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593843</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-29T15:20:14Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593838</link> <description>Pretty much go along with all that&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;For example, the Sun is way too hot to support life or consciousness so it would not make sense to say that the material operations of the Sun is the same thing as sentient experience.  However, could the Sun be our intepretation of the workings of another consciousness? Maybe, but that seems pretty out there...&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m inclined to think that the Sun is exactly part of life. I don&amp;#039;t really buy into the sentient-life-forms-trapped-in-a-dead-universe vision of things. We&amp;#039;re intimately bound in with our environment - not least because our consciousness seems to paint our bodies and environment onto the same canvas at the same time as part of one complex system at which we are the tail end, as well as the direct perceptions of such things via meditation etc.&lt;br /&gt;Whether the sun is a lifeform I haven&amp;#039;t given that much thought though I&amp;#039;ve seen philosophical schemes which place it as such.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:11:55 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593838</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-29T15:11:55Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593761</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Tom Tom:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;If you allow me I&amp;#039;d like to relate to the subject with a little spin. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Artificial Intelligence experts are saying it&amp;#039;s only a matter of time when AI will reach and surpass human intelligence. I&amp;#039;m not thoroughly familiar with buddhist dogma or any others religion for that matter but if I recall correctly &amp;#034;ensoulment&amp;#034; takes place at some point in development of human embryo. Theoretically in future we will also be able to engineer a biocyborg replica of human being. Could ensoulment happen to AI and can AI get enlightened in classical sense?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;My fundamental point in this &lt;strong&gt;thread was that the &amp;#034;soul&amp;#034; is an illusion or at most just a word used to conveniently describe a process&lt;/strong&gt;.  What people are referring to as &amp;#034;ensoulment&amp;#034; is simply the first sensational experience that arises after conception.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Now with A.I. we need to consider whether or not that A.I. possesses &amp;#034;experiential experience.&amp;#034;  Unfortunately, this would probably be impossible to determine.  For example, I recently saw this movie called &amp;#034;Her&amp;#034; where a guy dates a very advanced A.I. voice that converses and acts like a real human.  Just because this A.I. seems sentient doesn&amp;#039;t mean it actually would be.  It could have absolutely no internal sentient experience whatsoever and still seem like it does.&lt;strong&gt;  If it acts completely like it does, how would we be able to determine if it does or doesn&amp;#039;t?  We wouldn&amp;#039;t.&lt;/strong&gt;  There would be no way to know if it has sensational experience or not.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Those are all very good points and questions.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So if we (our conscience) wouldn&amp;#039;t be able to deny if sentient being is or isn&amp;#039;t experiencing stuff, doesn&amp;#039;t that make that &amp;#034;being&amp;#034; conscious? (turing test) &lt;br /&gt;Why couldn&amp;#039;t cyborgs procreate? Limits of nanotechnology are only in engineering. Building blocks are atoms.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Can we determine if non human being is conscious?&lt;br /&gt;Amoeba is a sentient being right? It experiences it&amp;#039;s surrounding. It surely is somewhat conscious?&lt;br /&gt;Why couldn&amp;#039;t a cyborg be conscious then? &lt;br /&gt;Data from star trek had an emotion chip installed iirc. &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 13:14:02 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593761</guid> <dc:creator>ftw</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-29T13:14:02Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593680</link> <description>Another example would be &amp;#034;Data&amp;#034; from Star Trek The Next Generation.  He is an android, but is he sentient?  He acts completely like he is, but are there internal sensations arising and vanishing within his experience?  One might presume that there isn&amp;#039;t, but how would that be determined physically?  No one knows.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:55:37 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593680</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-29T05:55:37Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593672</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;If you allow me I&amp;#039;d like to relate to the subject with a little spin. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Artificial Intelligence experts are saying it&amp;#039;s only a matter of time when AI will reach and surpass human intelligence. I&amp;#039;m not thoroughly familiar with buddhist dogma or any others religion for that matter but if I recall correctly &amp;#034;ensoulment&amp;#034; takes place at some point in development of human embryo. Theoretically in future we will also be able to engineer a biocyborg replica of human being. Could ensoulment happen to AI and can AI get enlightened in classical sense?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;My fundamental point in this thread was that the &amp;#034;soul&amp;#034; is an illusion or at most just a word used to conveniently describe a process.  What people are referring to as &amp;#034;ensoulment&amp;#034; is simply the first sensational experience that arises after conception.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Now with A.I. we need to consider whether or not that A.I. possesses &amp;#034;experiential experience.&amp;#034;  Unfortunately, this would probably be impossible to determine.  For example, I recently saw this movie called &amp;#034;Her&amp;#034; where a guy dates a very advanced A.I. voice that converses and acts like a real human.  Just because this A.I. seems sentient doesn&amp;#039;t mean it actually would be.  It could have absolutely no internal sentient experience whatsoever and still seem like it does.  If it acts completely like it does, how would we be able to determine if it does or doesn&amp;#039;t?  We wouldn&amp;#039;t.  There would be no way to know if it has sensational experience or not.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:50:40 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593672</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-29T05:50:40Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593668</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;You ever see The Demon Seed ?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Nope.  I&amp;#039;ll have to check it out.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:40:54 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593668</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-29T05:40:54Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593647</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;It&amp;#039;s closer than reliant on, isn&amp;#039;t it ? Experience is matter unless you propose a consciousness/matter dualism ? So are you getting at some sort of universal consciousness which is present at universal heat death, but with nothing happening to reflect on ?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;So what kind of consciousness would that be ?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m not positing any consciousness at all upon the heat death of the Universe.  Just as I would not posit any consciousness on Earth if the Earth did not exist or if the Sun was too hot to support life on Earth.  Edit:  This might not rule out the possibility for sentience to arise if there are other Universes or sentience somehow arising beyond the ordinary material means for it in other Universes/planes (if they exist).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;It&amp;#039;s closer than reliant on, isn&amp;#039;t it ? Experience is matter unless you propose a consciousness/matter dualism ? So are you getting at some sort of universal consciousness which is present at universal heat death, but with nothing happening to reflect on ?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;So what kind of consciousness would that be ?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m not positing a dualism between the two since there is a direct, interdependent, causal relationship between experience and matter, but I&amp;#039;m not sure if &amp;#034;experience/sensations IS matter.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For example, are sensations made up of quarks which in turn are made into sub-atomic particles combined with electrons which then in turn form into atoms which then form into molecules which form into chemical substances which then form into DNA, cells, etc?  This seems to only apply to the operations of the material body which creates the sense of experience, but how is this actual experience itself?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Now we could posit that experience IS energy and that is fair enough.  However, all of our definitions of energy are with regard to material extrapolations from sensations/experience, so it is difficult to get a good definition exactly.  There is no absolute measure of energy.  It is determined by objects and their properties.  For example, the potential energy of a ball is determined by its height above the ground.  This has nothing to do with the properties of the actual sensations of seeing that ball sitting at a spot flickering on and off in actual experience.  There is the energy in a quanta of light or photon, but that is also not the same thing as the visual sensations flickering on and off which is simply an interpratation of that light by the brain after entering the eyes.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, if there is no difference between the two, then you would also have to consider whether or not &amp;#034;matter IS experience&amp;#034;.... (If Experience = Matter then Matter = Experience)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For example, the Sun is way too hot to support life or consciousness so it would not make sense to say that the material operations of the Sun is the same thing as sentient experience.  However, could the Sun be our intepretation of the workings of another consciousness? Maybe, but that seems pretty out there...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is some fundamental relationship between the two, but I&amp;#039;m not sure if anyone knows exactly what that is.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2014 05:03:30 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593647</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-29T05:03:30Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Consciousness on/off switch, Science, Contemplations</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593157</link> <description>My personal take on &amp;#034;self&amp;#034; is that it is emergent - meaning it is a distinct phenomena made of simpler parts.  In the same way a painting is made up of three simple primary colors, a painting did not exist &amp;#034;in the paint&amp;#034; before it was made, and if you scramble up the colors, it wont exist anymore.  You can say all the parts of the painting are still there, but that misses the point of a painting - it&amp;#039;s ISness comes from the arrangement of the colors specifically.  The painting isn&amp;#039;t just the molecules it&amp;#039;s made of, it&amp;#039;s the pattern those molecules make.  When I die, or when you die, the molecules that we are made up of will still exists, but we won&amp;#039;t because we are the patterns. Buddhism seems to be about allowing the pattern to recognize itself - a kind of death before death.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;ve never really been clear how rebirth could be a part of Buddhism. Mahayana talks about &amp;#034;karmic seeds&amp;#034; which I take to mean that this pattern we are (our &amp;#034;self&amp;#034;) causes other patterns to emerge elsewhere through our interaction with the world. When we are enlightened (or become Bodhisattvas, which is more the Mahayana ideal) our pattern causes other patterns to move towards enlightenment as well. The end of rebirth would be when everything is enlightened together.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Theravada seems to take a more practical approach that we are reborn directly, but then, Theravada is also more focused on anatta than Mahayana seems to be, so there&amp;#039;s a bit of a conflict there.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 20:16:09 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593157</guid> <dc:creator>Not Tao</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T20:16:09Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Consciousness on/off switch, Science, Contemplations</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593046</link> <description>How does the song go - Cthulhu wants me for a dark energy beam ?</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:32:39 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593046</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T18:32:39Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Brain to brain interface - dealing with someone else's karmic crap</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593040</link> <description>In case you haven&amp;#039;t been paying attention, we already are lumbered with other people&amp;#039;s mental garbage. &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/tongue.gif" &gt; Although I suppose it could possibly get worse. </description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:30:05 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593040</guid> <dc:creator>Jane Laurel Carrington</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T18:30:05Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>Brain to brain interface - dealing with someone else's karmic crap</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593024</link> <description>&amp;#034;International researchers are reporting that they have built the first human-to-human brain-to-brain interface, allowing two humans &amp;#x2014; separated by the internet &amp;#x2014; to consciously communicate with each other, with no additional sensory cues. One researcher, attached to a brain-computer interface (BCI) in India, successfully sent words into the brain of another researcher in France, who was wearing a computer-to-brain interface (CBI).&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, are we looking at a situation, in the future, in which&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;- we can meditate on somebody elses mental phenomena ?&lt;br /&gt;- we can meditate for someone else ?&lt;br /&gt;- we can plug into a meditation master&amp;#039;s mind and she/he can do it for us ?&lt;br /&gt;- we can be lumbered with other people&amp;#039;s mental garbage ?&lt;br /&gt;- we can have a whole network meditate together on one person ?</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:25:37 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593024</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T18:25:37Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593005</link> <description>You ever see The Demon Seed ?</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:59:51 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593005</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T17:59:51Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593002</link> <description>&amp;#034;another theoretical option is callled the &amp;#034;big crunch,&amp;#034; but is currently not in favor&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Kaku likes this one.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;Our experiential experience is reliant on the properties of inanimate matter for its functioning, but this is not the same thing as that actual experiential experience.  The laws I listed above apply to sentient experience itself.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It&amp;#039;s closer than reliant on, isn&amp;#039;t it ? Experience is matter unless you propose a consciousness/matter dualism ? So are you getting at some sort of universal consciousness which is present at universal heat death, but with nothing happening to reflect on ?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So what kind of consciousness would that be ?</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:59:21 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5593002</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T17:59:21Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Consciousness on/off switch, Science, Contemplations</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592967</link> <description>&lt;ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;&lt;li&gt;What do we know … of the world and the universe about us? &lt;strong&gt;Our means of receiving impressions are absurdly few, and our notions of surrounding objects infinitely narrow. We see things only as we are constructed to see them, and can gain no idea of their absolute nature. With five feeble senses we pretend to comprehend the boundlessly complex cosmos&lt;/strong&gt;, yet other beings with wider, stronger, or different range of senses might not only see very differently the things we see, but might see and study whole worlds of matter, energy, and life which lie close at hand yet can never be detected with the senses we have.&lt;ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;&lt;li&gt;&amp;#034;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;en&amp;#x2e;wikisource&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;wiki&amp;#x2f;From_Beyond"&gt;From Beyond&lt;/a&gt;&amp;#034; Written November 16, 1920, published June 1934 in The Fantasy Fan, 1&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul style="list-style: disc outside;"&gt;H.P. Lovecraft</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 17:14:51 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592967</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T17:14:51Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Sam Harris: An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592946</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;chris .:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt; I thought he&amp;#039;d detail his practice in practical language, what insights he had, and try to put them into scientific terms.  Instead there was a lot of general fluff aimed at non-meditators.  Though, I understand he was writing to a non-meditator audience.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There wasn&amp;#039;t much in his book that I haven&amp;#039;t already read in other books.  &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m reading it now...so far pretty good but I agree with your take on it. I wish h would get into personal experience a bit more...&lt;br /&gt;It has many good quoteable parts to it...&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Sam Harris:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&amp;#034;In fact, when I pay attention, it is impossible for me to feel like a self at all: The implied center of cognition and emotion simply falls away, and it is obvious that consciousness is never truly confined by what it knows. That which is aware of sadness is not sad. That which is aware of fear is not fearful. The moment I am lost in thought, however, I’m as confused as anyone else.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:34:38 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592946</guid> <dc:creator>Dream Walker</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T15:34:38Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Interesting paper. Science seeking enlightenment.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592926</link> <description>I&amp;#039;m glad they are doing what Dan was hoping for measuring progress on the path.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:32:24 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592926</guid> <dc:creator>Richard Zen</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T13:32:24Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Interesting paper. Science seeking enlightenment.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592891</link> <description>This gadget might prove useful. Monitor your own brainwaves as you meditate:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;bbc&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;news&amp;#x2f;technology-29339090"&gt;http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29339090&lt;/a&gt;</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:54:14 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592891</guid> <dc:creator>Derek Cameron</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T12:54:14Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592873</link> <description>If you allow me I&amp;#039;d like to relate to the subject with a little spin. &lt;br /&gt;Artificial Intelligence experts are saying it&amp;#039;s only a matter of time when AI will reach and surpass human intelligence. I&amp;#039;m not thoroughly familiar with buddhist dogma or any others religion for that matter but if I recall correctly &amp;#034;ensoulment&amp;#034; takes place at some point in development of human embryo. Theoretically in future we will also be able to engineer a biocyborg replica of human being. Could ensoulment happen to AI and can AI get enlightened in classical sense?</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 11:46:03 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592873</guid> <dc:creator>ftw</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T11:46:03Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592843</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Why not ? Why not lots of buddha teachers showing our descendents the way on the bases on Neptune etc ?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sure, why not?  I never refuted this notion.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:59:27 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592843</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T08:59:27Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592832</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;If you&amp;#039;re saying that a basic property of the universe is that it is in flux, and no sentient being will be able to disprove that - seems reasonable. Any being would have to be made of matter, and that is always in motion.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;First of all we need to distinguish between experience and inanimate matter.  Our experiential experience is reliant on the properties of inanimate matter for its functioning, but this is not the same thing as that actual experiential experience.  The laws I listed above apply to sentient experience itself.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;But what about &lt;a href="https&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;en&amp;#x2e;wikipedia&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;wiki&amp;#x2f;Heat_death_of_the_universe"&gt;universal heat death&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; ?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Universal heat death applies only to this known Universe.  Assuming there are no other matter or some other &amp;#034;unknown/dark matter&amp;#034; based Universes that could support life, then there simply will be no sentient life if the Universe falls into a state of heat death (another theoretical option is callled the &amp;#034;big crunch,&amp;#034; but is currently not in favor).  Since life is reliant on the properties of inanimate matter, then it would be impossible for there to be sentient life in such a scenario.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, there could be other cosmic domains or Universes other than this one, and the possibility is high due to the anthropic principle.  Meaning it is extremely improbable to have a Universe with the ability to encode information in molecular structures (conditions that would support life).  This suggests that there could be an infinite number of Universes -- most of which would not be able to support the type of life based on the material properties that we know support life here on Earth.  However, other Universes open up a large number of other possibilities for the inanimate to support the animate.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It should also be noted that experiential experience is the only thing we have to infer the existence of inanimate matter. Inanimate matter is being inferred from the sensations of experience and as such it does not exist in the same tangible sense that actual experience does.  Inanimate matter is an abstraction from experiential reality, and not experiential reality itself.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 08:13:39 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592832</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T08:13:39Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>Interesting paper. Science seeking enlightenment.</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592802</link> <description>In the paper they are asking whether it would be possible to identify behavioral, cognitive or neurological determinants of &amp;#034;enlightenment&amp;#034;. Pretty interesting that these things are being written in scientific journals. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;They specifically talk about Mahasi tradition.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;journal&amp;#x2e;frontiersin&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;Journal&amp;#x2f;10&amp;#x2e;3389&amp;#x2f;fpsyg&amp;#x2e;2013&amp;#x2e;00870&amp;#x2f;full"&gt;http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00870/full&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&lt;/a&gt; would be curious to hear what people here think about that question also.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2014 06:32:04 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592802</guid> <dc:creator>Trial And Error</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-26T06:32:04Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592643</link> <description>If you&amp;#039;re saying that a basic property of the universe is that it is in flux, and no sentient being will be able to disprove that - seems reasonable. Any being would have to be made of matter, and that is always in motion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But what about &lt;a href="https&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;en&amp;#x2e;wikipedia&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;wiki&amp;#x2f;Heat_death_of_the_universe"&gt;universal heat death&lt;/a&gt; ?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I guess, in buddhism, heat death and the end of all change is not a valid concept ?</description> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:41:12 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592643</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-25T21:41:12Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592637</link> <description>&amp;#034;Buddhist scripture says that when the dharma has decayed then in several thousand years another Buddha will arise to re-discover the teachings.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Why not ? Why not lots of buddha teachers showing our descendents the way on the bases on Neptune etc ?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;I already specifically pointed out that the vipassana stages could very well be different or non-existent for different creatures.  It isn&amp;#039;t even always necessary for a human to go through the vipassana stages to get enligthened.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I do apologise, I missed that bit.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:35:59 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592637</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-25T21:35:59Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592634</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Tom, if it is anything like the &amp;#034;laws&amp;#034; of physics then we are in for a bumpy ride - the laws of physics change radically and regularly.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;While your statement may be dubious in several specific physical cases, I was merely using the term to denote something like &amp;#034;cosmic law&amp;#034; which applies to sentient experience.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;You seem to be assuming some sort of finality in &amp;#034;enlightened&amp;#034;. The Buddha logically spent most of his effort talking about the human condition. There is no doubt a lot more dharma to discover, imagine a bunch of buddhas get together and start building a society...&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I was merely using the term dharma to refer to the three laws I stated.  Anything other than that is up for grabs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;It seems quite imaginable to have a sentient being with absolutely no sense of agency - I&amp;#039;m pretty sure there are &amp;#034;mentally disabled&amp;#034; humans like that.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of course, that is why I stated that the very core of the dharma is completely irrelevant to sentient &amp;#034;beings&amp;#034; who are already born enlightened. That is, unless they wish to teach un-enlightened beings.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Why not a hive like concept - just really clever bees!&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There are no hive-like organisms whose experience would violate the three laws of sentient experience.  This is true for ants and bees and any other hive-like organism.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Imagineable that some being may never die - could just go on forever (if the universe does...). May just swallow the occassional galaxy to keep on ticking!&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Immortality would not violate the three laws.  The immortal entity would still experience reality as selfless/impermanent sensations and would have no permanent-separate-controller-self or Self.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;There could be experiences that are well above and beyond what our minds can create. If we consider the small difference between a monkey and human, if there is a much large difference between human and more aadvanced creature they would devise concepts more appropriate for their needs. I&amp;#039;m sure monkeys think we would get by fine living on the monkey&amp;#039;s terms &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of course there are experiences that will be above and beyond what a human experiences.  There are vast differences in evolution on just this planet.  Compare the difference between a house-fly and a human.  However, this does not negate the fact that neither the house-fly nor the human&amp;#039;s experience violates the three laws of sentient experience. This is equally true for some incomprehensibly advanced organism beyond the human.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;With advances in biology and computing we may see the emergence of things that push the dharma much further than imagineable. It would be a sad day if everything worth knowing was wrapped up 2500 years ago !&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;True, but any future dharma will include the three laws I have stated as they are the core feature of the dharma.  If beings are already born enlightened then this aspect of the dharma will become irrelevant, but there may be other aspects surrounding morality and well-being that may still be important.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:30:59 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592634</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-25T21:30:59Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592621</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Is there a doctrinal reference for that - I&amp;#039;m not really familiar with buddhist scripture ? &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The dharma, as simply &amp;#034;the teachings,&amp;#034; is temporary, but the very innermost core of the dharma (in the form of the three laws I wrote above) will always be applicable.  Buddhist scripture says that when the dharma has decayed then in several thousand years another Buddha will arise to re-discover the teachings.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Buddhism seems absolutely rooted in the human nervous system - all the techniques and methods are precisely to negotiate that - human emotions, human perceptions, human social mores etc. All these things depend on the human nervous system - and we are just one species of ape on one planet. So buddhism as a religion or philosophy depends on humans staying human, seems to me.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I never said &amp;#034;Buddhism&amp;#034; is eternal.  The only core thing that is relevant to all sentient entities or experience are the three laws I wrote.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;For instance, let&amp;#039;s say that the A&amp;amp;P is simply an way to see through some particular tricks of the human brain as it constructs our perceptual reality ?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;A life form that doesn&amp;#039;t construct perceptions in that way will not need or experience that stage of meditation. Probably there are many life forms on Earth that come into that category.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I already specifically pointed out that the vipassana stages could very well be different or non-existent for different creatures.  It isn&amp;#039;t even always necessary for a human to go through the vipassana stages to get enligthened.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Why shouldn&amp;#039;t life forms be out there that &lt;em&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;don&amp;#039;t&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt; have that human dualistic split between self and world, or aggregate various sensory inputs into a unique self ?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I also already specifically pointed out that the dharma wouldn&amp;#039;t matter if sentient beings are already born enlightened.  However, this does not negate the truth of the three laws pointed out above.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 21:17:14 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592621</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-25T21:17:14Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592569</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Tom Tom:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The dharma is eternal and applicable to all sentient life, no matter how advanced or primitive the lifeform is.  That is, unless, sentient beings are born enlightened to begin with.  The word dharma means &amp;#034;law,&amp;#034; like the laws of physics, not government.  Now, I could see the vipassana stages as perhaps being different for different organisms, but general observerlessness/centerlessness/agencylessness will always apply.  There will never be a separate permanent self for any being.  In addition to this, there will never be any being whose reality is composed of something other than impermanent/selfless sensations, no matter how advanced.  This is not speculation.  This is why the Buddha was known as the &amp;#034;teacher of the gods.&amp;#034;  The dharma was equally applicable to very &amp;#034;evolutionarily&amp;#034; advanced devas and god-beings.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Tom, if it is anything like the &amp;#034;laws&amp;#034; of physics then we are in for a bumpy ride - the laws of physics change radically and regularly.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You seem to be assuming some sort of finality in &amp;#034;enlightened&amp;#034;. The Buddha logically spent most of his effort talking about the human condition. There is no doubt a lot more dharma to discover, imagine a bunch of buddhas get together and start building a society...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It seems quite imaginable to have a sentient being with absolutely no sense of agency - I&amp;#039;m pretty sure there are &amp;#034;mentally disabled&amp;#034; humans like that.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Why not a hive like concept - just really clever bees!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Imagineable that some being may never die - could just go on forever (if the universe does...). May just swallow the occassional galaxy to keep on ticking!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Simulated beings would allow the exact same scenario to be played out - terrible but imagineable.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There could be experiences that are well above and beyond what our minds can create. If we consider the small difference between a monkey and human, if there is a much large difference between human and more aadvanced creature they would devise concepts more appropriate for their needs. I&amp;#039;m sure monkeys think we would get by fine living on the monkey&amp;#039;s terms &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;With advances in biology and computing we may see the emergence of things that push the dharma much further than imagineable. It would be a sad day if everything worth knowing was wrapped up 2500 years ago !</description> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 20:12:54 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592569</guid> <dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-25T20:12:54Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592528</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;The dharma is eternal and applicable to all sentient life, no matter how advanced or primitive the lifeform is.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Is there a doctrinal reference for that - I&amp;#039;m not really familiar with buddhist scripture ?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Buddhism seems absolutely rooted in the human nervous system - all the techniques and methods are precisely to negotiate that - human emotions, human perceptions, human social mores etc. All these things depend on the human nervous system - and we are just one species of ape on one planet. So buddhism as a religion or philosophy depends on humans staying human, seems to me.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For instance, let&amp;#039;s say that the A&amp;amp;P is simply an way to see through some particular tricks of the human brain as it constructs our perceptual reality ?&lt;br /&gt;A life form that doesn&amp;#039;t construct perceptions in that way will not need or experience that stage of meditation. Probably there are many life forms on Earth that come into that category.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Why shouldn&amp;#039;t life forms be out there that &lt;em&gt;don&amp;#039;t&lt;/em&gt; have that human dualistic split between self and world, or aggregate various sensory inputs into a unique self ?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Gods and Devas ? Are buddhists still going with these ?</description> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 19:18:35 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592528</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-25T19:18:35Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Consciousness on/off switch, Science, Contemplations</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592367</link> <description>Evidence builds that meditation strengthens the brain&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;newsroom&amp;#x2e;ucla&amp;#x2e;edu&amp;#x2f;releases&amp;#x2f;evidence-builds-that-meditation-230237"&gt;http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/evidence-builds-that-meditation-230237&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;So, one could view meditation as exercise, for the brain.  And similar to bodybuilding, one could suppose that when one doesn&amp;#039;t meditate, the gains one makes would atrophy, i.e. one would gradually lose the gains.  I think we often do not notice the changes meditation makes, as the process is gradual, but science is proving that there are real, positive and even physical effects of meditation. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Om Mani Padme Hum, Om Mani Padme Hum, Om Mani Padme Hum.....&lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/closed_eyes.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Psi Phi</description> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:40:24 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592367</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-25T14:40:24Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592164</link> <description>I have written down the three laws of sentient existence, just like the three laws of thermodynamics.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;The Three Laws of Sentient Experience&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;1. There will never be an independent-separate-controlling self or Self for any sentient lifeform or sentient experience**.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;2. There will never be a sentient lifeform (or sentient experience**) whose experience consists of something other than impermanent and self-less sensations*.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;3. Nirvana/Nibbana is the realization of the previous two laws for all sentient experience and sentient lifeforms.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;*(I&amp;#039;m leaving out the dukkha characteristic only because very very advanced lifeforms likely experience impermanent/self-less sensations so refined that they would be pretty much unable to see the dukkha in them.).&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;**(I have used the word &amp;#034;sentient experience&amp;#034; to delineate formless type existences where the body is not well defined and the experience is amorphous and not as solid).</description> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:47:07 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592164</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-25T06:47:07Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592148</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;What happens to buddhism and meditation if humans evolve beyond all recognition in the coming centuries ? New genes, new nervous system, new everything - maybe we eventually turn into something as different to us as we are to jellyfish - so isn&amp;#039;t buddhism doomed by evolution ? After all, it developed as a part of homo sapiens sapiens culture so presumably it will disappeaer with HSS too ?&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The dharma is eternal and applicable to all sentient life, no matter how advanced or primitive the lifeform is.  That is, unless, sentient beings are born enlightened to begin with.  The word dharma means &amp;#034;law,&amp;#034; like the laws of physics, not government.  Now, I could see the vipassana stages as perhaps being different for different organisms, but general observerlessness/centerlessness/agencylessness will always apply.  There will never be a separate permanent self for any being.  In addition to this, there will never be any being whose reality is composed of something other than impermanent/selfless sensations, no matter how advanced.  This is not speculation.  This is why the Buddha was known as the &amp;#034;teacher of the gods.&amp;#034;  The dharma was equally applicable to very &amp;#034;evolutionarily&amp;#034; advanced devas and god-beings.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 06:03:13 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5592148</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-25T06:03:13Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Consciousness on/off switch, Science, Contemplations</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5591666</link> <description>Reading some other threads, coming across the ideas of re-birth, etc,  Which remined me of (here comes impersaonal associated thoughts arising), a quote, that I had thought was attributed to William Blake:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;Nothing lasts, yet nothing is lost.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, we ponder, &amp;#034;here is this body, here is this mind&amp;#034;, but from where does this arise, could this have existed before and exist after?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And, apparently all we are has existed already and all we are will continue to exist.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;press&amp;#x2e;web&amp;#x2e;cern&amp;#x2e;ch&amp;#x2f;backgrounders&amp;#x2f;fourth-generation-particles"&gt;http://press.web.cern.ch/backgrounders/fourth-generation-particles&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #444444"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: PT&amp;#x20;Serif&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Georgia&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Times&amp;#x20;New&amp;#x20;Roman&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;DejaVu&amp;#x20;Serif&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Everything we see &amp;#x2013; from coffee cups to computers to human beings &amp;#x2013; is made up of just three basic particles: two types of quarks that make up the nucleus of an atom and an electron that orbits that nucleus.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="color: #444444"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: PT&amp;#x20;Serif&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Georgia&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Times&amp;#x20;New&amp;#x20;Roman&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;DejaVu&amp;#x20;Serif&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #444444"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: PT&amp;#x20;Serif&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Georgia&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Times&amp;#x20;New&amp;#x20;Roman&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;DejaVu&amp;#x20;Serif&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #444444"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: PT&amp;#x20;Serif&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Georgia&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;Times&amp;#x20;New&amp;#x20;Roman&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;DejaVu&amp;#x20;Serif&amp;#x2c;&amp;#x20;serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;So &amp;#034;we stuff&amp;#034; has already been around, and will continue on changing and combining into new patterns, just like it is doing right now, in essence we are all sharing the same stuff.  Not even getting into the dark matter subject.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But , also, for consciousness to exist, it too has to be made of something, Mass and Energy, quarks and atoms, maybe stuff we as yet are unaware of.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But, do our patterns of consciousness come from times long gone and does it carry forward to the future?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If one has a past life memory, are you sure it is &amp;#034;your&amp;#034; past life memory, or just &amp;#034;a&amp;#034; past life memory.  (or sumthin&amp;#039; else)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Anyway, the quarks and electrons we are currently made of have been around for at least 13 billion years, &amp;#034;I&amp;#034; am older than &amp;#034;I&amp;#034; thought.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Happy Birthday Everyone!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Psi Phi&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</description> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 01:13:57 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5591666</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-25T01:13:57Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Sam Harris: An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5591624</link> <description>I don&amp;#039;t know about the paths and streams etc., I&amp;#039;ll have to read up. Except I can see it&amp;#039;s a silly use of the word &amp;#034;path&amp;#034; if it really means goal or landmark. Maybe it&amp;#039;s a translation thing.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 25 Sep 2014 00:12:13 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5591624</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-25T00:12:13Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Sam Harris: An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5590521</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;John:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;... Other than that he&amp;#039;s the only famous atheist who&amp;#039;s also a contemplative which is probably a good bridge between science and religion.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I found his book disappointing.  He breezed through, in fifteen or twenty pages, the part that I was looking forward to.  As a neuroscientist (I think he has his Masters) and an experienced meditator having done a few years in retreat practice, I thought he&amp;#039;d detail his practice in practical language, what insights he had, and try to put them into scientific terms.  Instead there was a lot of general fluff aimed at non-meditators.  Though, I understand he was writing to a non-meditator audience.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Harris explains, very quickly, that he gave up on vipassana after not getting &lt;strike&gt;stream entry&lt;/strike&gt; first path, and turned towards Dzogchen.  That he had a positive experience with his new teacher.  But he doesn&amp;#039;t go into any detail, like how far did he get in vipassana, why did he &amp;#039;fail&amp;#039;, did he have to start over with Dzogchen, how long did his progress take, did his success with Dzogchen line up with what he was looking for with vipassana.  etc....    &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There wasn&amp;#039;t much in his book that I haven&amp;#039;t already read in other books. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;* edit, I meant 1st path above, not stream entry.  sorry.. </description> <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:45:10 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5590521</guid> <dc:creator>chris .</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-23T21:45:10Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5590374</link> <description>Certainly speculative, but I think the potential for changing some fundamental apsects of what it means to be human are just showing up, after thousands of years of relative stability in the genotype and phenotype (if I have my terminology right).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It seems like we are at a point of disruption for religion. I wonder if the trend for shamanism can continue if humans migrate off planet and away from jungles altogether ? And I just saw Archbishop Desmond Tutu has been calling to save the environment despite the Apocalypse being a fundamental part of Christianity. So are we going to see renewable energies disrupt the narrative of Apocalyptic religions ?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Is there any sign of anything contemplative in non-human primates, BTW ?</description> <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:58:43 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5590374</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-23T19:58:43Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5590357</link> <description>This stuff is so speculative. We don&amp;#039;t know what will happen to humans 1000 years from now let alone evolutionary changes that last millions of years.  Secondly there are other galaxies and planets that probably have some kind of life so the timeframes to discover (if we can) is in the light years. Buddhism works well with humans as they are but other animals will have different needs whatever ones exist in the future.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:48:14 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5590357</guid> <dc:creator>Richard Zen</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-23T19:48:14Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Sam Harris: An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5590353</link> <description>I believe he ran a meditation for scientists project a few years ago, never did catch up with that but I&amp;#039;m sure the results are out there somewhere to see if he drove anyone crazy.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:45:44 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5590353</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-23T19:45:44Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Sam Harris: An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5590348</link> <description>I watched him on both his Joe Rogan appearances, and I conclude that he should always be led away from the subject of Islam because he looks really stressed and pale when gets into it. Other than that he&amp;#039;s the only famous atheist who&amp;#039;s also a contemplative which is probably a good bridge between science and religion.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:42:11 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5590348</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-23T19:42:11Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>post human meditation</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5590337</link> <description>What happens to buddhism and meditation if humans evolve beyond all recognition in the coming centuries ? New genes, new nervous system, new everything - maybe we eventually turn into something as different to us as we are to jellyfish - so isn&amp;#039;t buddhism doomed by evolution ? After all, it developed as a part of homo sapiens sapiens culture so presumably it will disappeaer with HSS too ?</description> <pubDate>Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:35:32 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5590337</guid> <dc:creator>John</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-23T19:35:32Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>Hypothesis: Myelination and Jhanas</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5588941</link> <description>Mustered a meditative attempt to express a hypothesis that interrelates a meditative phenomenon with possible underlying physiological processes:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Interested to hear any comments, insights or feedback precipitated by this piece~&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;img src="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;wrinkletime&amp;#x2e;files&amp;#x2e;wordpress&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;2012&amp;#x2f;08&amp;#x2f;adag&amp;#x2e;jpg" /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Myelination and Jhana&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Tahoma"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 10px"&gt;The establishment, maintenance, and stabilization Jhanic state is the electrical breakthrough to a novel area of the brain and precipitate flow of fluid momentum that results.  Maintenance of the attention and breath along the pathway pulls nutrients in the blood with the breath along the pathway.  With stabilized soft, repetitive fluid motion of the mind along the novel pathway, the nutrients (if bioavailable) are likely to be provided in sufficient quantities for oligodendrocytes  myelination activity along the pathway, making the pathway more accessible upon returning to the Jhana with intention.  Provided the internal mental environment is soft enough, and blood is readily available, the process of myelination will steadily occur as the nutrient supply is sustained.  The content of information that arises while the Jhana is maintained determines the content of the insight available, the functional areas involved inform the fundamental origin of the nature of the content.  Content will have degrees of accessibility according to the spatial orientation of the content along the sensory awareness of the area in which the pathway covers.  Lower layers tend to be more accessible because a lower energy state is required for access.  &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Tahoma"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 10px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Mudras can assist in easily maintaining steady, smooth innervation along a novel pathway, if the novel pathway is accessible with a mudra.  Functional connectivity is established during a flow state, a fluid symmetrical pattern formed by moving the mind along a pathway with repetition.  In much the same way a jhana forms, the functional connectivity between areas is formed via intuitive sensory understanding of the fluid dynamic movement of brain waves between areas.  A visual memory formation at the center of the visual cortex, between hemispheres of the cerebellum allows an access point of reference for recall of the Jhanic state for future functional connectivity.  Fluid motion occurs easiest in bilateral symmetry with subtle motor control over the cerebellum and executive motor cortex, with passive maintenance of parieto-sensory spatial awareness of the head.  Sacred geometrical patterns are easiest to form between functional areas of the brain.  The easier the flow state is achieved, the more accessible.  The accessibility also depends on many underlying factors related to physiology: metabolism, blood oxygenation, blood pressure, muscular tension, posture, mental state.   &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Tahoma"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 10px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Tahoma"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 10px"&gt;The more solid a jhanic state becomes via repeated maintenance and myelination, the less accessible perpendicular or orthogonal neuronal pathways might become.  Therefore, a valuable inquiry into the content that arises, the nature of the originating functional area, and logical assessment of what wisdom the jhanic state might lead to and it&amp;#039;s relevance to path is paramount.  &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;</description> <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 21:58:50 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5588941</guid> <dc:creator>Stephen C Synchronicity</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-22T21:58:50Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>SoundSelf</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5588612</link> <description>Links:&lt;br /&gt;http://themittani.com/features/pax-2014-spotlight-soundself&lt;br /&gt;http://soundselfgame.com/&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On one hand I think people figuring out how to create new gaming experiences with Occulus is super cool. &lt;br /&gt;Linking the breath to a VR experience might be enough for some people to get into the lower jhanas and have some fun, which seems to be happening a lot. Framing an experience with Occulus creates an environment conducive to concentration, like a flashy flotation tank. I recall a paragraph in Daniel&amp;#039;s book: he imagines a world where some basic level of non-sectarian mind-instruction was available to everyone, and perhaps VR can be a part of that world. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On the other hand, I also recall a (longer, more emotional) paragraph in Daniel&amp;#039;s book. It included the phrase &amp;#034;STAY THE FUCK OUT OF THE DARK NIGHT&amp;#034;.  &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/blink.gif" &gt; Very likely a bunch of people play this game and chance into some scary stuff they can&amp;#039;t explain/figure out.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Anyway, thought I&amp;#039;d share. &lt;br /&gt;Gonna go post my retreat plans now. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Cheers,&lt;br /&gt;D</description> <pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2014 07:39:57 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5588612</guid> <dc:creator>T. Dan S-</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-22T07:39:57Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586630</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Sawfoot_ (Why is there an underscore at the end of your fake name?):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Arial"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;The more interesting debate is what should I choose to believe, and why. So, in your opinion, science is seriously flawed, it is provisional and constantly being revised and updated, and it cannot ever proove anything. Therefore, I do not use it as a basis for my belief system. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Arial"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yes, so now you are broadening out to the question the discipline of &lt;em&gt;philosophy&lt;/em&gt; can undertake and has undertaken, although without coming to any manner of consensus. Philosophy is a branch of the humanities, like American literature, which was my field. I&amp;#039;m influenced by the post-structuralist schools of literary theory, meaning deconstruction, or close reading. The whole impulse in deconstructive reading is to take apart whatever is reified. It is sort of the existentialism of sign systems. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Now, within a college English composition and rhetoric program, I used to teach scientific writing. It was my favorite discourse to teach. And what I taught students first was that, &amp;#034;Truth&amp;#034; aside, &amp;#034;truth-value&amp;#034; is a matter of cultural consensus-building. It is a cultural construct. So, scientists ask questions, and they gather data in a controlled way, and they have others in the community replicate the study to see if the results are reliable. Then there is always the matter of interpreting results. Able scientists interpret cautiously, and they painstakingly search for and discuss possible sources of error in their study setup or data analysis. Ultimately, when agreement on an interpretation is widespread enough among those with the credentials (a whole other subject), an interpretation becomes a theory or even a law. So, as with any other discipline, truth-value is, at bottom, a matter of convincing others. It is rhetorical, and it aims to change people&amp;#039;s minds. This is why scientists must learn the rhetoric of scientific discourse, practice it well, pass muster with the gatekeepers, and get published to succeed as scientists.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This in no way dimishes the beauty and importance of science. Euclidean geometry also proceeds according to axioms, &amp;#034;givens&amp;#034; assumed; that in no way dimishes the beauty and utility of geometry. Everything is &amp;#034;culture&amp;#034;; everything is rhetoric; everything is a matter of convincingness. We use science and math to build bridges, which are beautiful and useful, which are pretty convincing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, if you are asking me personally how I decide what to believe, I say, well . . . I don&amp;#039;t really decide things in terms of &amp;#034;Truth.&amp;#034; From long habit in the humanities, which has dozens of methods, not just one, my practice is to &amp;#034;play&amp;#034; with sign systems, play with texts and discourses purporting to be unassailable Truth, to work freely with the perceived opposites of Truth until I convince my reader to open to a broader consideration of what backs our decision-making in general.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Ok, so that makes a lot more sense, thanks. I am scientist, in that I think truth comes from us learning about the outside world; Daniel is a mystic, in which he thinks truth comes from his inner world, and you are post-structuralist, in which which you can&amp;#039;t find truth anywhere. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Fake name...hmmm..has a rather negative connotation, doesn&amp;#039;t it? I rather prefer the term pseudonym. </description> <pubDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2014 13:16:43 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5586630</guid> <dc:creator>sawfoot _</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-19T13:16:43Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5585878</link> <description>&lt;strong&gt;Sawfoot_ (Why is there an underscore at the end of your fake name?):&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Arial"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;The more interesting debate is what should I choose to believe, and why. So, in your opinion, science is seriously flawed, it is provisional and constantly being revised and updated, and it cannot ever proove anything. Therefore, I do not use it as a basis for my belief system. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Arial"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yes, so now you are broadening out to the question the discipline of &lt;em&gt;philosophy&lt;/em&gt; can undertake and has undertaken, although without coming to any manner of consensus. Philosophy is a branch of the humanities, like American literature, which was my field. I&amp;#039;m influenced by the post-structuralist schools of literary theory, meaning deconstruction, or close reading. The whole impulse in deconstructive reading is to take apart whatever is reified. It is sort of the existentialism of sign systems. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Now, within a college English composition and rhetoric program, I used to teach scientific writing. It was my favorite discourse to teach. And what I taught students first was that, &amp;#034;Truth&amp;#034; aside, &amp;#034;truth-value&amp;#034; is a matter of cultural consensus-building. It is a cultural construct. So, scientists ask questions, and they gather data in a controlled way, and they have others in the community replicate the study to see if the results are reliable. Then there is always the matter of interpreting results. Able scientists interpret cautiously, and they painstakingly search for and discuss possible sources of error in their study setup or data analysis. Ultimately, when agreement on an interpretation is widespread enough among those with the credentials (a whole other subject), an interpretation becomes a theory or even a law. So, as with any other discipline, truth-value is, at bottom, a matter of convincing others. It is rhetorical, and it aims to change people&amp;#039;s minds. This is why scientists must learn the rhetoric of scientific discourse, practice it well, pass muster with the gatekeepers, and get published to succeed as scientists.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This in no way dimishes the beauty and importance of science. Euclidean geometry also proceeds according to axioms, &amp;#034;givens&amp;#034; assumed; that in no way dimishes the beauty and utility of geometry. Everything is &amp;#034;culture&amp;#034;; everything is rhetoric; everything is a matter of convincingness. We use science and math to build bridges, which are beautiful and useful, which are pretty convincing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So, if you are asking me personally how I decide what to believe, I say, well . . . I don&amp;#039;t really decide things in terms of &amp;#034;Truth.&amp;#034; From long habit in the humanities, which has dozens of methods, not just one, my practice is to &amp;#034;play&amp;#034; with sign systems, play with texts and discourses purporting to be unassailable Truth, to work freely with the perceived opposites of Truth until I convince my reader to open to a broader consideration of what backs our decision-making in general.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;</description> <pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 02:55:31 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5585878</guid> <dc:creator>_</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-18T02:55:31Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5585409</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;sawfoot _:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;As a long-time science editor, I took certain courses in detecting mathematical and other errors in epidemiological research. One of the teachers of one of these courses pointed to an estimate that 80% of peer-reviewed published medical literature is based on bad study design, statistically speaking, and that as consumers of this literature we ought to be extremely skeptical of all of it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="Herehttp&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;medscape&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;viewarticle&amp;#x2f;829866&amp;#x3f;src&amp;#x3d;wnl_edit_specol&amp;#x26;uac&amp;#x3d;208279HR&amp;#x23;1"&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is an article explaining common sources of error and their prevalance.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Jen, what are you responding to here? Epidemiological research has flaws....so....fairies are real?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;Something, some kind of super subtle energetics must survive death(s) if what we are doing and experiencing as a result of so doing makes any sense at all. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;So either everything we know about physics, chemistry and biology is completely wrong and misguided, or some stuff that some dudes in a bronze-age civilisation made up doesn&amp;#039;t quite make sense....gee, it is a tricky one to choose between....&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi, Sawfoot,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t know how much sense it makes, ultimately, for me to make a statement of belief or disbelief regarding &amp;#034;fairies.&amp;#034; I will go ahead and bite and say that, to date, I haven&amp;#039;t believed and don&amp;#039;t believe in the existence of fairies; however, this belief/disbelief has nothing to do with the kinds of questions the scientific method can ask and (provisionally) answer. It has  to do with my not having experienced fairies directly myself, immediately. And it has a lot to do with not even knowing of anyone seriously claiming the existence of such things. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;My point in bringing up the seriously flawed state of scientific literature, besides backing up what Daniel said way up the thread about the same topic, is that when you point to modern &amp;#034;science&amp;#034; as some kind of foundationally valid and reliable arbiter of what deserves to be culturally privileged in terms of &amp;#034;truth-value,&amp;#034; you are pointing to peer-reviewed journals, which are seriously flawed on those very terms. If you aren&amp;#039;t going to &amp;#034;believe&amp;#034; in anything, or even remain agnostically open-minded, until it is published by scientific concensus, then you are going to have a very narrow range of &amp;#034;reality&amp;#034; within which to think, imagine, experience, and play. &lt;em&gt;Very, very narrow. &lt;/em&gt;And you (or someone similarly minded) might take Lipitor or hormone replacement therapy and suffer harm because of insufficient sketicism toward there being any &amp;#034;truth&amp;#034; that is reliably foundational. Worse--you may see little &amp;#034;point&amp;#034; in reading Shelley&amp;#039;s poetry or attending a Medicine Buddha Puja.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Moreover, science is defined by its method, the scientific method. Science &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; this method, not any specific conclusion drawn by means of employing it, conclusions which are always provisional and frequently reversed anyway. This method, the scientific method, is based on axioms--axioms that operate elegantly and fairly consistently as a closed system of inquiry, but axioms nonethess, which is to say &lt;em&gt;beliefs. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;I&amp;#039;m married to someone just like you with regard to this debate, so I&amp;#039;ll continue to think fondly of you even if I&amp;#039;ve just wasted my digital breath.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;With regard to your second quotation of my words, I was saying that what we are doing in trying to get enlightened doesn&amp;#039;t make much sense if this life is &amp;#034;all there is.&amp;#034; It doesn&amp;#039;t make logical sense, unless one thinks that there are just immediate benefits of meditation and these outweight all the trouble it costs. But, more important, perhaps is that biology, physics, and chemistry have not proven anything at all, for science doesn&amp;#039;t &amp;#034;prove&amp;#034; things; in fact, you can tell a scientific expert from a novice by his or her propensity to use the word &amp;#034;prove&amp;#034; at all: No pro will ever use that word in a scientic paper. The data &amp;#034;suggest,&amp;#034; never &amp;#034;prove&amp;#034;--so at least professional science is honest, which is wholly admirable. But even if such a thing as energetic phenomena or afterlife could be disproven, science hasn&amp;#039;t done so or even attempted to. Science doesn&amp;#039;t undertake questions beyond accessible material sense data; it doesn&amp;#039;t even ask the existence of such things as a research question. It can&amp;#039;t and still be &amp;#034;science.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Jenny&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Ok, thanks Jenny having a go. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One question is, what is it that we are debating? For me, the debate on whether magic powers and fairies exist, at one level, is not so interesting. We have over a hundred years of parapsychology research, the sum of which is that parapsychology is essentially a failed research enterprise, the main benefit of which I can see is giving us a better understanding of how pseudoscience works. We may not have disproved magic powers, but I think there are &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;preposterousuniverse&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;blog&amp;#x2f;2011&amp;#x2f;05&amp;#x2f;23&amp;#x2f;physics-and-the-immortality-of-the-soul&amp;#x2f;"&gt;good grounds to think they are impossible. &lt;/a&gt; So if you want to provide an argument that there is scientific evidence for the powers you probably are wasting your breath, based on the evidence and theoretical frameworks we have at this point at time. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The more interesting debate is what should I choose to believe, and why. So, in your opinion, science is seriously flawed, it is provisional and constantly being revised and updated, and it cannot ever proove anything. Therefore, I do not use it as a basis for my belief system. If see a fairy at the bottom of my garden, and my friends bob and linda think there are fairies living in the bottom of their garden, then I will believe in fairies, science be damned. Oh, and if I believe in science, I can&amp;#039;t enjoy poetry (!?!!?!) so that is bad, and believing one thing means I can&amp;#039;t get the benefits of other things which counteract those beliefs.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you want to believe in fairies, go believe in fairies, if believing in fairies is consistent with your goals (I am a pragmatist, after all). The question I think it all ultimately boils down to is what you think enlightenment is all about. I quite like the old fashioned idea about it.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 07:28:35 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5585409</guid> <dc:creator>sawfoot _</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-17T07:28:35Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5584806</link> <description>Fairies are real you guys! I&amp;#039;ve seen them and so have some other people&lt;br /&gt;People have written whole books about them. A genre of books even&lt;br /&gt;Didn&amp;#039;t you see sawfoot&amp;#039;s pictures?! And the one his gf took? jeez louise!!</description> <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 23:29:16 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5584806</guid> <dc:creator>Daniel Leffler</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-15T23:29:16Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5584792</link> <description>What is magic and what is mundane are both one and the same.  Everything that occurs has both a spiritual explanation and physical one.  There should be no separation.  If there is a separation for you, you have more to learn.  All physical phenomena are manifestations of spiritual phenomena. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I know everything.  I&amp;#039;d like you to know everything as well.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 23:06:11 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5584792</guid> <dc:creator>Jeremy May</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-15T23:06:11Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5584789</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;sawfoot _:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;As a long-time science editor, I took certain courses in detecting mathematical and other errors in epidemiological research. One of the teachers of one of these courses pointed to an estimate that 80% of peer-reviewed published medical literature is based on bad study design, statistically speaking, and that as consumers of this literature we ought to be extremely skeptical of all of it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="Herehttp&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;medscape&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;viewarticle&amp;#x2f;829866&amp;#x3f;src&amp;#x3d;wnl_edit_specol&amp;#x26;uac&amp;#x3d;208279HR&amp;#x23;1"&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is an article explaining common sources of error and their prevalance.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Jen, what are you responding to here? Epidemiological research has flaws....so....fairies are real?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;Something, some kind of super subtle energetics must survive death(s) if what we are doing and experiencing as a result of so doing makes any sense at all. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;So either everything we know about physics, chemistry and biology is completely wrong and misguided, or some stuff that some dudes in a bronze-age civilisation made up doesn&amp;#039;t quite make sense....gee, it is a tricky one to choose between....&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi, Sawfoot,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t know how much sense it makes, ultimately, for me to make a statement of belief or disbelief regarding &amp;#034;fairies.&amp;#034; I will go ahead and bite and say that, to date, I haven&amp;#039;t believed and don&amp;#039;t believe in the existence of fairies; however, this belief/disbelief has nothing to do with the kinds of questions the scientific method can ask and (provisionally) answer. It has  to do with my not having experienced fairies directly myself, immediately. And it has a lot to do with not even knowing of anyone seriously claiming the existence of such things. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;My point in bringing up the seriously flawed state of scientific literature, besides backing up what Daniel said way up the thread about the same topic, is that when you point to modern &amp;#034;science&amp;#034; as some kind of foundationally valid and reliable arbiter of what deserves to be culturally privileged in terms of &amp;#034;truth-value,&amp;#034; you are pointing to peer-reviewed journals, which are seriously flawed on those very terms. If you aren&amp;#039;t going to &amp;#034;believe&amp;#034; in anything, or even remain agnostically open-minded, until it is published by scientific concensus, then you are going to have a very narrow range of &amp;#034;reality&amp;#034; within which to think, imagine, experience, and play. &lt;em&gt;Very, very narrow. &lt;/em&gt;And you (or someone similarly minded) might take Lipitor or hormone replacement therapy and suffer harm because of insufficient sketicism toward there being any &amp;#034;truth&amp;#034; that is reliably foundational. Worse--you may see little &amp;#034;point&amp;#034; in reading Shelley&amp;#039;s poetry or attending a Medicine Buddha Puja.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Moreover, science is defined by its method, the scientific method. Science &lt;em&gt;is&lt;/em&gt; this method, not any specific conclusion drawn by means of employing it, conclusions which are always provisional and frequently reversed anyway. This method, the scientific method, is based on axioms--axioms that operate elegantly and fairly consistently as a closed system of inquiry, but axioms nonethess, which is to say &lt;em&gt;beliefs. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;With regard to your second quotation of my words, I was saying that what we are doing in trying to get enlightened doesn&amp;#039;t make much sense if this life is &amp;#034;all there is.&amp;#034; It doesn&amp;#039;t make logical sense, unless one thinks that there are just immediate benefits of meditation and these outweight all the trouble it costs. But, more important, perhaps is that biology, physics, and chemistry have not proven anything at all, for science doesn&amp;#039;t &amp;#034;prove&amp;#034; things; in fact, you can tell a scientific expert from a novice by his or her propensity to use the word &amp;#034;prove&amp;#034; at all: No pro will ever use that word in a scientic paper. The data &amp;#034;suggest,&amp;#034; never &amp;#034;prove&amp;#034;--so at least professional science is honest, which is wholly admirable. But even if such a thing as energetic phenomena or afterlife could be disproven, science hasn&amp;#039;t done so or even attempted to. Science doesn&amp;#039;t undertake questions beyond accessible material sense data; it doesn&amp;#039;t even ask the existence of such things as a research question. It can&amp;#039;t and still be &amp;#034;science.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Jenny</description> <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 23:03:30 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5584789</guid> <dc:creator>_</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-15T23:03:30Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5584696</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jeff Grove:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Something as foriegn as yin chi is labelled as magic yet if I were to speak of gravity it would be familiar and yet it is as equally unknown&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sawfoot I would be interested if you have expierienced any of the following&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;precognitive dreams&lt;br /&gt;deja vu&lt;br /&gt;Have you ever picked up the phone to call someone and found them on the other end&lt;br /&gt;Been thinking of someone and found them at your front door or bumped into them in the street&lt;br /&gt;conincidence&lt;br /&gt;syncronicity&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;How about something as mundane as knowing a storm approaches half a day in advance. This is all about perceiving a subtle change in your enviroment. There are signs in the movement of birds on the horizon, the smell in the wind and the feeling in the air.  Our senses have been deadened by the years of television and the less reliant we are on them for our day to day life the less we notice about the world we live in.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Sure, all of them except the precognitive dreams I suppose. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To keep it on topic, the question that interests me is why people want to seek magical explantions for phenomena.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So the stuff you are talking about can all be explained in a &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;atheism&amp;#x2e;about&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;od&amp;#x2f;parapsychology&amp;#x2f;a&amp;#x2f;coincidence&amp;#x2e;htm"&gt;mundane way&lt;/a&gt;. But wouldn&amp;#039;t the universe be so dreadfully boring if people didn&amp;#039;t have things like their special magic smelly-marker-pen-lid-putting-on mind-control powers....</description> <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:51:50 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5584696</guid> <dc:creator>sawfoot _</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-15T21:51:50Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5584692</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;As a long-time science editor, I took certain courses in detecting mathematical and other errors in epidemiological research. One of the teachers of one of these courses pointed to an estimate that 80% of peer-reviewed published medical literature is based on bad study design, statistically speaking, and that as consumers of this literature we ought to be extremely skeptical of all of it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="Herehttp&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;medscape&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;viewarticle&amp;#x2f;829866&amp;#x3f;src&amp;#x3d;wnl_edit_specol&amp;#x26;uac&amp;#x3d;208279HR&amp;#x23;1"&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is an article explaining common sources of error and their prevalance.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Jen, what are you responding to here? Epidemiological research has flaws....so....fairies are real?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;Something, some kind of super subtle energetics must survive death(s) if what we are doing and experiencing as a result of so doing makes any sense at all. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;So either everything we know about physics, chemistry and biology is completely wrong and misguided, or some stuff that some dudes in a bronze-age civilisation made up doesn&amp;#039;t quite make sense....gee, it is a tricky one to choose between....</description> <pubDate>Mon, 15 Sep 2014 21:41:37 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5584692</guid> <dc:creator>sawfoot _</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-15T21:41:37Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5583263</link> <description>Something as foriegn as yin chi is labelled as magic yet if I were to speak of gravity it would be familiar and yet it is as equally unknown&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sawfoot I would be interested if you have expierienced any of the following&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;precognitive dreams&lt;br /&gt;deja vu&lt;br /&gt;Have you ever picked up the phone to call someone and found them on the other end&lt;br /&gt;Been thinking of someone and found them at your front door or bumped into them in the street&lt;br /&gt;conincidence&lt;br /&gt;syncronicity&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;How about something as mundane as knowing a storm approaches half a day in advance. This is all about perceiving a subtle change in your enviroment. There are signs in the movement of birds on the horizon, the smell in the wind and the feeling in the air.  Our senses have been deadened by the years of television and the less reliant we are on them for our day to day life the less we notice about the world we live in.</description> <pubDate>Sun, 14 Sep 2014 01:27:30 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5583263</guid> <dc:creator>Jeff Grove</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-14T01:27:30Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5583138</link> <description>As a long-time science editor, I took certain courses in detecting mathematical and other errors in epidemiological research. One of the teachers of one of these courses pointed to an estimate that 80% of peer-reviewed published medical literature is based on bad study design, statistically speaking, and that as consumers of this literature we ought to be extremely skeptical of all of it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="Herehttp&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;medscape&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;viewarticle&amp;#x2f;829866&amp;#x3f;src&amp;#x3d;wnl_edit_specol&amp;#x26;uac&amp;#x3d;208279HR&amp;#x23;1"&gt;Here&lt;/a&gt; is an article explaining common sources of error and their prevalance.</description> <pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2014 21:13:12 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5583138</guid> <dc:creator>_</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-13T21:13:12Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>Consciousness on/off switch, Other Science , Other thoughts</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5582977</link> <description>Wax on, Wax off, Self on,  Self off, Don&amp;#039;t forget to breathe, very important...&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;newscientist&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;article&amp;#x2f;mg22329762&amp;#x2e;700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain&amp;#x2e;html&amp;#x3f;full&amp;#x3d;true&amp;#x23;&amp;#x2e;VBSaHvm-2o9"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VBSaHvm-2o9&lt;/a&gt;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2014 19:30:40 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5582977</guid> <dc:creator>Psi Phi</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-13T19:30:40Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Sam Harris: An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5582940</link> <description>I just finished the audiobook which is about 5 hours long. The audiobook doesn&amp;#039;t have the footnotes which are also interesting (got the book on piratebay to read those). Harris aims with this book is to convince scientifically-minded people that the sense of self is worth to be investigated and will vanish under close inspection. The book doesn&amp;#039;t go deaper in instructions and Buddhist theory than what posted on reddit above. The book is really more about making a point than providing guidance. It might comes out as stating the obvious sometimes for those already into this stuff. The chapter on consciousness is the one that I found the most interesting as are the insights coming from neuroscience. Harris is quite explicit that he isn&amp;#039;t done on this path, saying that he still get lost in his thoughts quite a bit. There is a section dealing with gradual vs suddent enlightenment and he said that the therevada path wasn&amp;#039;t working for him and he never got a cessation. On the other hand, he is very into dzochen. He deal with the moral limitations of enlightenment, citing examples of Trungpa Rinpoche among others. He also deal with the good and bad sides of psychedelics. </description> <pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2014 18:33:15 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5582940</guid> <dc:creator>Simon T.</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-13T18:33:15Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Sam Harris: An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5582928</link> <description>Someone posted on reddit the meditation instructions found in Waking up:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;reddit&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;r&amp;#x2f;Meditation&amp;#x2f;comments&amp;#x2f;2fxen2&amp;#x2f;waking_up_by_sam_harris_all_meditation&amp;#x2f;"&gt;http://www.reddit.com/r/Meditation/comments/2fxen2/waking_up_by_sam_harris_all_meditation/&lt;/a&gt;</description> <pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2014 18:23:18 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5582928</guid> <dc:creator>Simon T.</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-13T18:23:18Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5582370</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jeff Grove:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Hi, Jeff,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I apologize that my comment came off as glib. I was in a weirdly playful mood when I wrote that about the A&amp;amp;E channel. I mean no disrespect, and I appreciate your willingness to share your videos. Yes, I&amp;#039;m currently quite amazed over my first fruition and now my sudden access to the formless realm of Boundless Space. Just this is immediate experience of Magick as far as I&amp;#039;m concerned. So I&amp;#039;m not a skeptic. I&amp;#039;m an open-minded agnostic on the subject of extraordinary phenomena until I have some direct apprehension of the phenomena in question. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Again, sorry if I came off as insensitive.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Jenny&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Hi Jen,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;thankyou for the reply, I knew what I was in for when I wrote what I wrote as I have heard all the explanations before but DhO is about sharing our experiences and if we were afraid of that DhO wouldn&amp;#039;t exist. The sifu in china is a respected physician who runs a hospital and is also Deputy Director of the Classical Chinese Medicine Research Institute in China. Some of his patients include an ex president of indonseia and members of one of the royal faimilies (If I remeber it was Thai) so not bad for someone who supposedly pulls off cheap magic tricks for tourists as sawfoot deducted. The day of the cows cost me a taxi ride and I got a free meal thrown in.&lt;br /&gt;One of the sifus helped me for seven years before he died and the only money I ever gave him was 200 in a card once so not something he would do for finacial gain. I payed to train with Zhao but he runs a school and clinic in Sydney and have payed for every buddhist retreat I have been on.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;cheers&lt;br /&gt;Jeff&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Hi Jeff, sorry for being actually insenstive (not that this counts for much). One thing I was trying to figure out while watching those videos was to what extent the &amp;#034;Sifu&amp;#034; was aware of  what was going on. One possibility was that he wasn&amp;#039;t - that he geniunely believes he has magic powers (and was a decent chap), and that the deception was happening with the infrastructure around him. That was partly why I showed the clips of the Chi master - clearly he really believed he had magic Chi powers, though in this case the illusion occurred due to his students unconsciously reinforcing that belief rather than any outright deception. </description> <pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2014 06:53:00 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5582370</guid> <dc:creator>sawfoot _</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-13T06:53:00Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5582311</link> <description>This thread is too long to read all of it when I want so badly to say something that I Know.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There is rebirth, and there is reincarnation.  Reincarnation is a type of rebirth and it is a phenomenon that has quite a large amount of supporting evidence.  I know all about this process, but until others know for themselves, it is useless to speak what I know.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But fairies?  Aren&amp;#039;t they the same as devas?   I did not believe or disbelieve in &amp;#039;elemental spirits&amp;#039; until after my practice began to give me the ability to know minds.  Early this year, I was in the forest close to where we live by a wildlife refuge, and I &amp;#039;saw&amp;#039; a mind, quite distinctly, beside a very peculiar tree.  I &amp;#039;looked&amp;#039; at it in the same way I look at people and animals and saw that it was either unhuman or of an origin that it itself did not know.  I had a friend with me that day, a dear Taoist friend of mine that claims to be able to see spirits, so I called to him. When he reached the spot, without a word from me, he pointed to where the mind was and said, &amp;#034;what the fuck is that?&amp;#034;  I replied, &amp;#034;I don&amp;#039;t know. I have never felt one before.&amp;#034;  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That evening when I got home, I poured through the theravada and found several stories of Devas that live in certain trees.  I&amp;#039;d always assumed they were fables... but now I know they were Literal.</description> <pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2014 05:27:10 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5582311</guid> <dc:creator>Jeremy May</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-13T05:27:10Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5581905</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Hi, Jeff,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I apologize that my comment came off as glib. I was in a weirdly playful mood when I wrote that about the A&amp;amp;E channel. I mean no disrespect, and I appreciate your willingness to share your videos. Yes, I&amp;#039;m currently quite amazed over my first fruition and now my sudden access to the formless realm of Boundless Space. Just this is immediate experience of Magick as far as I&amp;#039;m concerned. So I&amp;#039;m not a skeptic. I&amp;#039;m an open-minded agnostic on the subject of extraordinary phenomena until I have some direct apprehension of the phenomena in question. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Again, sorry if I came off as insensitive.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Jenny&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Hi Jen,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;thankyou for the reply, I knew what I was in for when I wrote what I wrote as I have heard all the explanations before but DhO is about sharing our experiences and if we were afraid of that DhO wouldn&amp;#039;t exist. The sifu in china is a respected physician who runs a hospital and is also Deputy Director of the Classical Chinese Medicine Research Institute in China. Some of his patients include an ex president of indonseia and members of one of the royal faimilies (If I remeber it was Thai) so not bad for someone who supposedly pulls off cheap magic tricks for tourists as sawfoot deducted. The day of the cows cost me a taxi ride and I got a free meal thrown in.&lt;br /&gt;One of the sifus helped me for seven years before he died and the only money I ever gave him was 200 in a card once so not something he would do for finacial gain. I payed to train with Zhao but he runs a school and clinic in Sydney and have payed for every buddhist retreat I have been on.&lt;br /&gt;From one of my early experience I was healing an old buddhist nun from the chenrezig monastry and as I came in close proximity to her there was a tugging on my awareness like a rubber band as she sucked up my qi, I had a similar experince in one of my practices where I would use trees to balance and clean my qi cycling and exchanging with the tree. I selected a large old tree except this day the flow was one way as the tree sucked up my qi (ping heng gong). There is much to investigate beyond the normal accepted experiences.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi Erik and Tom Tom&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As to the rebirth question. We know that rebirth is not the same as reincarnation. But lets look at our own experience.&lt;br /&gt;Our lungs are 2-3 weeks old, taste buds are 10 days old, liver 5 months old, heart 20 years, skin 2 to 4 weeks, bones 10 years, intestines 2 to 3 days, hair 3 to 6 years, blood up to 4 months, nails 10 months, and the list goes on. No part of these are a permanent self.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; If for the past 20 years I digested a small ammount of mercury it would condition my present experinence, shape my personality and character which is not the same personality and charachter born 48 years ago. Death occurs at every moment and this moment is conditioned by what came before. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;cheers&lt;br /&gt;Jeff</description> <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 23:54:24 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5581905</guid> <dc:creator>Jeff Grove</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-12T23:54:24Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579719</link> <description>As an aside: contratulations to Sawfoot for starting what is probably the one of the most-viewed if not the most-viewed thread in the history of the DhO. Regardless of any other considerations, abilities or understandings, you have a talent that newspapers such as The National Inquirer might pay big money for, just in case your current gig doesn&amp;#039;t work out or you are looking to trade up.</description> <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 01:38:30 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579719</guid> <dc:creator>Daniel M. Ingram</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-12T01:38:30Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579696</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Eric M W:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;Hmm, it is indeed weird that those enlightened people get so grumpy, isn&amp;#039;t it? And some sometimes even can be mean. It&amp;#039;s almost like those two behaviours might be correlated....Still, it is a nice name to call oneself. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;An enlightened individual can be grumpy and still not suffer.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Hi Eric,&lt;br /&gt;I must say I&amp;#039;m utterly confused by this response (it&amp;#039;s a theme recently nothing personal &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also I&amp;#039;m new here and I don&amp;#039;t want to offend/hijack anyone, so for safety&amp;#039;s sake I&amp;#039;ll assert that fairies never get grumpy, I know this because whenever I&amp;#039;ve seen them they&amp;#039;re super-chipper. Aghem, moving on...&lt;br /&gt;My understanding of dukkha is mainly informed the Buddha&amp;#039;s teachings of the two arrows. The first arrow is actual bare senate pain which can&amp;#039;t be eliminated as long as we have human bodies (I think I&amp;#039;m borrowing from Pema Chodron here as well) and the second arrow is our reaction to that pain. In my mind grumpiness is a reaction, a second arrow, like depression. My viewpoints are also very colored by Goenka&amp;#039;s presentation of the dharma and the role that sankharas play in negative emotional responses etc, so that may contribute to my confusion as well&lt;br /&gt;If an Enlightened person can get grumpy (therefore making all of us unfortunately non-enlightened people grumpy by association, not very compassionate of them) can they also get depressed and angry and vengeful and what&amp;#039;s the f-ing point then?!&lt;br /&gt;Besides suffering, dukkha has been translated as &amp;#039;stressful&amp;#039; among other terms like &amp;#039;anxiety&amp;#039; (by heavy hitters like Thanassaro Bhikkhu). Isn&amp;#039;t grumpiness stressful? Doesn&amp;#039;t enlightenment eliminate things like stress and leave one experiencing the emptiness of the brahma viharas: love, compassion, joy and equanimity? I feel a little duped. Because I&amp;#039;ve had some deep post-meditative experiences abiding in fearlessness, compassion and joy for weeks on end (not grumpy at all back then), I&amp;#039;m ready to be corrected, but I thought the whole point was the eliminate suffering - the Buddha said he taught two things, suffering (stress, anxiety etc) and the elimination thereof. I thought that my temporary Buddha-like experiences (which were really sweet btw) would be made permanent by the attainment of arahatship (actually I was aiming for Stream Entry or Once Returner only but now I&amp;#039;m not so sure about any of it)&lt;br /&gt;Please help me understand what I&amp;#039;m missing here!? Were my experiences purely jhanic and the result of meditating 10-plus hours per day (which is no way to live IMO moving forward), when will I go roller skating?!&lt;br /&gt;I know I&amp;#039;m wildly veering off from the fairy business, but this is at least tangentally related to intellectual honesty (don&amp;#039;t get me started on reincarnation) and plus, I really like this thread. I&amp;#039;m clinging to the fairies. Oh no - fairy sankharas!&lt;br /&gt;Daniel</description> <pubDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2014 00:55:57 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579696</guid> <dc:creator>Daniel Leffler</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-12T00:55:57Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579143</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;Hmm, it is indeed weird that those enlightened people get so grumpy, isn&amp;#039;t it? And some sometimes even can be mean. It&amp;#039;s almost like those two behaviours might be correlated....Still, it is a nice name to call oneself. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;An enlightened individual can be grumpy and still not suffer.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:35:51 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579143</guid> <dc:creator>Eric M W</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-10T20:35:51Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579092</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Daniel Leffler:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Good morning DhO!!! (Robin Williams voice)&lt;br /&gt;Long time listener first time caller&lt;br /&gt;So as not too hijack the thread (did I get that right? I&amp;#039;m not very internetty) I would first like to say, of course fairies are real (duh) any critical thinking person knows that, and I hope that ends the speculation for good - jeezus H - it&amp;#039;s not like they are sasquatches or something! (which any critical thinking person knows is a big load of hooey - maybe your next avatar should be your gf&amp;#039;s selfie sawfoot_?!) Priceless&lt;br /&gt;Anyhoo, my serious comment is that I think the subject of &amp;#039;intellectual honesty&amp;#039; (as mr foot refers to it) is very necessary when performing the delicate task of unraveling your mind, body and emotions and exploding (or imploding, feel free to discuss on and on) your sense of Self out into the Great Beyond, and I am eternally grateful to all of you for existing here (or not ;)&lt;br /&gt;For instance, I got into meditation practice after my first 10-day Goenka retreat almost eight years ago because I wasn&amp;#039;t very contented in life (for no clear reason) and I just wanted to be happy, I needed something. I found Vipassana (capital V, which drove my friends apeshit) and it transformed me in so many ways, most of them good&lt;br /&gt;&lt;u&gt;&lt;/u&gt;As opposed to Not Tao, who I find also exhibits admirable quantities of this intellectual honesty that the fairy discussion was maybe a cover for (if we&amp;#039;re being intellectually honest here ;), I am a pretty philosophical and spiritual dude, so I got 8 years of traction ruminating on the Three Cs and anatta and karma and yada yada... but, I got into meditation because I wasn&amp;#039;t content, not because I really wanted to get to the bottom of my delusion and clinging to some mind-manufactured Self - I just wanted to be happy god-dammit! I thought that unravelling the sense of self would completely lead to that (and it does to a degree I guess but I can&amp;#039;t tell if that&amp;#039;s just the jhanas talking) so it does perplex me somewhat that stream enterers (much less arahats!) still get grumpy. What up with that?&lt;br /&gt;I know, this needs to go on a new thread, I think I did hijack afterall (where is that damn backspace button?!)&lt;br /&gt;Anyway thanks again guys (for reals, &amp;#039;specially D Ingram and his hilarious nemesis sawfoot_) for the insights, the honesty (as you see it) and for the DhO - because of you I have now lost my religion completely (capital V) and I&amp;#039;m totally bewildered confused and broken. That&amp;#039;s good right?&lt;br /&gt;Daniel-san&lt;br /&gt;ps I want a hat&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Hi Daniel. You are definitely hat-worthy. Just don&amp;#039;t say you have no idea if anyone is hat-worthy or not. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Fairies are real? Just like I said. You should submit your evidence to this peer reviewed scientific journal :http://www.journalofcryptozoology.com&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hmm, it is indeed weird that those enlightened people get so grumpy, isn&amp;#039;t it? And some sometimes even can be mean. It&amp;#039;s almost like those two behaviours might be correlated....Still, it is a nice name to call oneself. Forthwith, I am going to call myself amazinged. Level 3a amazinged. Because I am so amazing. And level 3a is the best kind of being amazinged.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&amp;#034;I&amp;#039;m totally bewildered confused and broken. That&amp;#039;s good right?&amp;#034; That is a great place to be! A sure sign of progress....Just watch out for those who don&amp;#039;t think they are confused.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yours,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Amazinged One, Sawfoot_@&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;confused.com&lt;/span&gt;</description> <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:55:18 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5579092</guid> <dc:creator>sawfoot _</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-10T18:55:18Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578783</link> <description>Good morning DhO!!! (Robin Williams voice)&lt;br /&gt;Long time listener first time caller&lt;br /&gt;So as not to hijack the thread (did I get that right? I&amp;#039;m not very internetty) I would first like to say, of course fairies are real (duh) any critical thinking person knows that, and I hope that ends the speculation for good - jeezus H - it&amp;#039;s not like they are sasquatches or something! (which any critical thinking person knows is a big load of hooey - maybe your next avatar should be your gf&amp;#039;s selfie sawfoot_?!) Priceless&lt;br /&gt;Anyhoo, my serious comment is that I think the subject of &amp;#039;intellectual honesty&amp;#039; (as mr foot refers to it) is very necessary when performing the delicate task of unraveling your mind, body and emotions and exploding (or imploding, feel free to discuss on and on) your sense of Self out into the Great Beyond, and I am eternally grateful to all of you for existing here (or not ;)&lt;br /&gt;For instance, I got into meditation practice after my first 10-day Goenka retreat almost eight years ago because I wasn&amp;#039;t very contented in life (for no clear reason) and I just wanted to be happy, I needed something. I found Vipassana (capital V, which drove my friends apeshit) and it transformed me in so many ways, most of them good&lt;br /&gt;&lt;u&gt;&lt;/u&gt;As opposed to Not Tao, who I find also exhibits admirable quantities of this intellectual honesty that the fairy discussion was maybe a cover for (if we&amp;#039;re being intellectually honest here ;), I am a pretty philosophical and spiritual dude, so I got 8 years of traction ruminating on the Three Cs and anatta and karma and yada yada... but, I got into meditation because I wasn&amp;#039;t content, not because I really wanted to get to the bottom of my delusion and clinging to some mind-manufactured Self - I just wanted to be happy god-dammit! I thought that unravelling the sense of self would completely lead to that (and it does to a degree I guess but I can&amp;#039;t tell if that&amp;#039;s just the jhanas talking) so it does perplex me somewhat that stream enterers (much less arahats!) still get grumpy. What up with that?&lt;br /&gt;I know, this needs to go on a new thread, I think I did hijack afterall (where is that damn backspace button?!)&lt;br /&gt;Anyway thanks again guys (for reals, &amp;#039;specially D Ingram and his hilarious nemesis sawfoot_) for the insights, the honesty (as you see it) and for the DhO - because of you I have now lost my religion completely (capital V) and I&amp;#039;m totally bewildered confused and broken. That&amp;#039;s good right?&lt;br /&gt;Daniel-san&lt;br /&gt;ps I want a hat</description> <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:52:54 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578783</guid> <dc:creator>Daniel Leffler</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-09T16:52:54Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578477</link> <description>It may be a dogmatic agnosticism about my dogmatism though! Yeah definitely a new thread lol</description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 20:33:32 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578477</guid> <dc:creator>. Jake .</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-08T20:33:32Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578446</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;. Jake .:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;LOL LOL &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yes I was definitely trolling you with my last post Ol Saw. But one good turn deserves another don&amp;#039;t you think?&lt;br /&gt;It&amp;#039;s true, I lean in a certain direction, sometimes! But I don&amp;#039;t know. And I know that I don&amp;#039;t know. That is pretty scary too dude! ;)&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;Just when I though the whole world had gone mad...&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Thanks Jake,  that is awesome, I needed a laugh. Triple LOL!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And I know that I know - and that&amp;#039;s pretty f****n&amp;#039; scary too, dude!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Though perhaps we can discuss your dogmatic belief in your agnosticism in a new thread...&lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/smug.gif" &gt;</description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 19:45:58 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578446</guid> <dc:creator>sawfoot _</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-08T19:45:58Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578428</link> <description>I like Heidegger&amp;#039;s take on it: death is &amp;#034;the possibility of impossibility&amp;#034;.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 19:17:05 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578428</guid> <dc:creator>. Jake .</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-08T19:17:05Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578424</link> <description>LOL LOL &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/happy.gif" &gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yes I was definitely trolling you with my last post Ol Saw. But one good turn deserves another don&amp;#039;t you think?&lt;br /&gt;It&amp;#039;s true, I lean in a certain direction, sometimes! But I don&amp;#039;t know. And I know that I don&amp;#039;t know. That is pretty scary too dude! ;)</description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 19:10:51 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578424</guid> <dc:creator>. Jake .</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-08T19:10:51Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578382</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;. Jake .:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;J:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;This whole conversation (about afterlife etc.) is really interesting to me, on a socio-cultural level. I have no idea what if anything happens to my experiential continuum at death. But I find it so amusing that materialist types often point to folks who beleive in an afterlife of some kind and call them escapist. They say that &amp;#039;believers&amp;#039; can&amp;#039;t face the reality of death being a complete end of experiencing. But what&amp;#039;s more comforting than a complete end of experiencing if you think about it? I mean, either way, thinking about death is sad because of the people you will leave behind or who will leave you behind right? Everyone who&amp;#039;s being honest could probably fess up to a whole bunch of emotions about death-as-oblivion or any other kind of death; grief, resentment, regret, excitement at finding out. I mean that sucks. But fear? I&amp;#039;m certainly not afraid of oblivion and I don&amp;#039;t see how anyone could be. Meanwhile, the traditions have these visions of afterlives that are often pretty high stakes. Terrifying really! A more clear case of projection would be hard to find than that of the materialist accusing the believer of being &amp;#039;escapist&amp;#039; lol. That said, of course lots of folks use beliefs about afterlife stuff to not handle their grief around losing and leaving loved ones. Point is oblivion can play the same role. Just not knowing what the fuck death is all about is a pretty tough stance to maintain, on an emotional level, becuase the human mind *wants to know* (in general).&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Are you guys trying to wind me up deliberately? You know you were an inspiration for this thread too, Jake?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;I have no idea what if anything happens to my experiential continuum at death.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Absolutely no idea, right? Maybe you just fly off into fairy land?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;sawfoot:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jake:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;:&lt;br /&gt;. I just think it&amp;#039;s funny how many secular moderns talk about various afterlife theories as escapist and rarely consider that oblivion at death-- the secular modern assumption-- can also be a defense mechanism (against the actual uncertainty of what if anything is experienced after death). So personally I&amp;#039;m agnostic although some experiences definitely point to the possibility of rebirth, which is rather troubling (and not at all comforting).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you are agnostic about rebirth, are you also agnostic about the possibility of an afterlife with 72 virgins?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;From &amp;lt;http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/4814759&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;jake:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Sawfoot, I&amp;#039;m agnostic about what experientially happens-- if anything-- after my bodily death. I just don&amp;#039;t know what if anything happens or doesn&amp;#039;t happen. Neither do you. If it makes you happy and helps you deal with your admitted fear of death to pretend that you know, then more power to you. Have you ever considered that the fear of not knowing is more fundamental than the fear of death?&lt;br /&gt;...&lt;br /&gt;As for the 72 virgins, you seem to feel that is a very important point though I&amp;#039;m not sure why, but yeah I guess ultimately I&amp;#039;m agnostic about that possibility as well. However, like yourself, I do find certain possibilities more probably or plausible than others.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Believing that certain possibilities are more probable or plausible is exactly the point...You do have some idea. So you can say you have no idea, but it isn&amp;#039;t treally true, is it?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I know you like this particular line of reasoning, but here is a data point for you. I am, honest to god, experientially speaking, literally and completely (truly and ultimately etc..) terrified of the thought of my own oblivion. Seriously. I am not making this up. And I believe (or, in other words, &amp;#034;pretend to know&amp;#034;) that death is oblivion. And the thought still scares the shit out of me. So every time you remember this line of thought and those silly materialist types, and you start thinking &amp;#034; I don&amp;#039;t see how anyone could be [afraid of oblivion]...&amp;#034; can you remember this conversation? Remember ole&amp;#039;  Saw?</description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:55:36 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578382</guid> <dc:creator>sawfoot _</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-08T17:55:36Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578311</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Tom:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Arial"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Another question to consider: If re-birth is not true, why is enlightenment real?  Why do the stages occur as they do?  &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yeah. I think about this often too. Something, some kind of super subtle energetics must survive death(s) if what we are doing and experiencing as a result of so doing makes any sense at all. I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu has a free book on this topic, but I&amp;#039;ve not yet read it. I used to attend a Tibetan center where discussions on rebirth reached quite a profound level.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It seems a bit odd that the Tibetans go looking for and testing what seems like reincarnations rather than the more suble &amp;#034;rebirth.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Jenny&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yeah the Tibetans have some pretty far-out beliefs about this. The Tulkus are said to consciously take rebirth to benefit beings, but the criteria for being able to do that is supposed to be very high level realization (meaning, beyond seeing noself). So it&amp;#039;s not simply reincarnation either. Rebirth means a continuity of mindstream that emerges in various bodies but that mindstream, like the bodies and everything else in Universe, is empty and impermanent. A tulku is said to have basically participated in the rebirth process consciously and intentionally to help beings (as opposed to us poor shmucks who are entirely driven by karmic winds in the in-between-state). ((Then again the Tibetans have lots of practices, like Phowa, for us which are supposed to help with that.)) Jeff probably knows a lot more about this topic than I do but basically a lot of Tibetan high level practices seem to have a lot to do with navigating that in-between-lives state or otherwise affecting that process. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This whole conversation (about afterlife etc.) is really interesting to me, on a socio-cultural level. I have no idea what if anything happens to my experiential continuum at death. But I find it so amusing that materialist types often point to folks who beleive in an afterlife of some kind and call them escapist. They say that &amp;#039;believers&amp;#039; can&amp;#039;t face the reality of death being a complete end of experiencing. But what&amp;#039;s more comforting than a complete end of experiencing if you think about it? I mean, either way, thinking about death is sad because of the people you will leave behind or who will leave you behind right? Everyone who&amp;#039;s being honest could probably fess up to a whole bunch of emotions about death-as-oblivion or any other kind of death; grief, resentment, regret, excitement at finding out. I mean that sucks. But fear? I&amp;#039;m certainly not afraid of oblivion and I don&amp;#039;t see how anyone could be. Meanwhile, the traditions have these visions of afterlives that are often pretty high stakes. Terrifying really! A more clear case of projection would be hard to find than that of the materialist accusing the believer of being &amp;#039;escapist&amp;#039; lol. That said, of course lots of folks use beliefs about afterlife stuff to not handle their grief around losing and leaving loved ones. Point is oblivion can play the same role. Just not knowing what the fuck death is all about is a pretty tough stance to maintain, on an emotional level, becuase the human mind *wants to know* (in general).</description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:39:03 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578311</guid> <dc:creator>. Jake .</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-08T15:39:03Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578301</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Hi, Jeff,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I apologize that my comment came off as glib. I was in a weirdly playful mood when I wrote that about the A&amp;amp;E channel. I mean no disrespect, and I appreciate your willingness to share your videos. Yes, I&amp;#039;m currently quite amazed over my first fruition and now my sudden access to the formless realm of Boundless Space. Just this is immediate experience of Magick as far as I&amp;#039;m concerned. So I&amp;#039;m not a skeptic. I&amp;#039;m an open-minded agnostic on the subject of extraordinary phenomena until I have some direct apprehension of the phenomena in question. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Again, sorry if I came off as insensitive.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Jenny&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;I am sorry to say I am going to have to ask for the hats back.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Lesson learned - whenever you want to troll a thread without appearing to, bring up reincarnation and watch the fun commence. C&amp;#039;mon guys, I have another thread for just that. This one is about fairies.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;And so Jen, once you have that direct apprehension of extraordinary phenomena, then you know it is real, right? &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;You are an open-minded agnostic, right? Anything is possible, right? I mean, TomTom can accept a s&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;mall amount of telekenises and pyromancy, but shape shifters? People that turn into animals? Rainbow bodies? Reincarnation? And fairies....?????&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Glad you like the thread though, and as a matter of fact, you were inspirational in its creation!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;]http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/4805320&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;:&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is not to say any particular phenomenon is &amp;#034;real&amp;#034; or &amp;#034;imaginary.&amp;#034; It is to say, perhaps it is &amp;#034;safest&amp;#034; to remain open. Perhaps it is best, if coming from a scientific POV, to speak the truth: &amp;#034;We don&amp;#039;t know.&amp;#034;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;sawfoot:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Jen, do you think fairies are &amp;#034;real&amp;#034;? There recently has been some new scientific proof which I have posted below.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;http://www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/4835855&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 14:31:36 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578301</guid> <dc:creator>sawfoot _</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-08T14:31:36Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578218</link> <description>Tom:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: Arial"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Another question to consider: If re-birth is not true, why is enlightenment real?  Why do the stages occur as they do?  &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yeah. I think about this often too. Something, some kind of super subtle energetics must survive death(s) if what we are doing and experiencing as a result of so doing makes any sense at all. I think Thanissaro Bhikkhu has a free book on this topic, but I&amp;#039;ve not yet read it. I used to attend a Tibetan center where discussions on rebirth reached quite a profound level.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It seems a bit odd that the Tibetans go looking for and testing what seems like reincarnations rather than the more suble &amp;#034;rebirth.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Jenny</description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 08:05:18 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578218</guid> <dc:creator>_</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-08T08:05:18Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578215</link> <description>Hi, Jeff,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I apologize that my comment came off as glib. I was in a weirdly playful mood when I wrote that about the A&amp;amp;E channel. I mean no disrespect, and I appreciate your willingness to share your videos. Yes, I&amp;#039;m currently quite amazed over my first fruition and now my sudden access to the formless realm of Boundless Space. Just this is immediate experience of Magick as far as I&amp;#039;m concerned. So I&amp;#039;m not a skeptic. I&amp;#039;m an open-minded agnostic on the subject of extraordinary phenomena until I have some direct apprehension of the phenomena in question. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Again, sorry if I came off as insensitive.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Jenny</description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 07:52:30 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578215</guid> <dc:creator>_</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-08T07:52:30Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578163</link> <description>When I first got into meditation I didn&amp;#039;t believe in rebirth and meditated to have a happier life.  I was prepared to live the life I had ahead of me, but I thought that a nice peaceful oblivian awaited me when I died.  But after steeping myself in Buddhist thought for a few years, I began to worry about this rebirth thing, and my peaceful oblivian seemed to be slipping away.  I wouldn&amp;#039;t say that I&amp;#039;m a total believer in rebirth now, but I&amp;#039;ve heard and read enough things that inclines me to believe it, and the thought of living life after life after life sounds terrifying.  Now it&amp;#039;s a big motivation for practice.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you want to read some interesting acounts of children who remember past lives, check out Francis Story &amp;#034;Rebirth as doctrine and experience&amp;#034; and Jim Tucker &amp;#034;Return to life.  Pretty eerie accounts.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for the mechanics of rebirth: from what I understand, it&amp;#039;s not the self per se that is reborn, but our whole mass of consciousness and kamma.  Our consciousness in this body is causally connected from one moment to the next, and when we die our consciousness causally arises in another body or another realm.  </description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 03:14:56 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578163</guid> <dc:creator>Teague</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-08T03:14:56Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578151</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;For rebirth to be true, there must be a &amp;#034;self&amp;#034; to be born again. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;There most certainly does not need to be a self for re-birth to occur. There is a difference between the Buddhist term &amp;#034;re-birth&amp;#034; and the Hindu notion of &amp;#034;re-incarnation.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In Buddhism re-birth occurs due to the continuity of cause-and-effect process and the false internalized notion of a self/controller (clinging to &amp;#034;self-view&amp;#034;), not from an actual self that is getting reincarnated.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Anyways, when I was referring to re-birth I wasn&amp;#039;t specifically referring to myself.  &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Regardless, I am a perpetual &amp;#034;late-into-it&amp;#034; anagami (for a little over 2 years now) and not yet an arahat by Daniel&amp;#039;s definition. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;When I proposed the question of &amp;#034;why would enlightenment exist if re-birth is not true?&amp;#034; I mean why would we have a notion of self-clinging to begin with?  Why does the entire process of disenchantment with phenomena and seeing through an independent self/controller/doer exist if there is no process of re-birth? </description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 02:42:32 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578151</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-08T02:42:32Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578118</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Eric M W:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Speaking of AF, I am under the impression that they don&amp;#039;t believe in any kind of afterlife at all. If I were a little more cynical, I would say this is wonderful news, because then &lt;strong&gt;(DISCLAIMER: DO NOT DO THIS) &lt;/strong&gt;we could all just kill ourselves and have the Nirvana that those silly Theravadins spend so much hard cushion-time pursuing. If there is no memory after death, it doesn&amp;#039;t matter who we hurt by doing this, so we may as well be done with it, right? &lt;strong&gt;(DISCLAIMER: REALLY DONT DO THIS)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Who&amp;#039;d want to?&lt;br /&gt;Why is not existing at all preferable to living just this once? &lt;br /&gt;Why is a permanent not-anything (with no one and nothing there to know it) preferable to a temporary experience of everything?&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;ll never understand this.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 00:56:36 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578118</guid> <dc:creator>John Wilde</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-08T00:56:36Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578108</link> <description>Tom Tom,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For rebirth to be true, there must be a &amp;#034;self&amp;#034; to be born again. However, from a high vipassana point of view, there is no self, and never has been. Forgive me if I am incorrect, but if I recall one of your posts, you have attained 4th path, and no-self should theoretically be obvious at all times at the arahat level.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;That being said, I have had plenty of what I would consider &amp;#034;past life&amp;#034; experiences, including a very specific military rank and rather unusual name that I was able to track down &amp;#034;in real life.&amp;#034; Very interesting, and a little unnerving. There has been no shortage of more vague experiences-- standing in a field of some kind next to a large structure, a woman in Victorian dress. No hard clues to those, but always a feeling of familiarity, like I am recovering a long lost memory.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Interdependence is vast, and in theory, sensations ring on forever. So there is certainly merit to the idea of rebirth even if we set aside the notion of a separate self. It certainly has never stopped Buddhists (and Sikhs, Hindus, certain shamanic cultures, etc...) from believing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for AF, it&amp;#039;s an axis of development related to emotions. What that has to do with rebirth, I have no idea. I&amp;#039;m not sure how folks make that connection, unless they are parroting Richard&amp;#039;s &amp;#034;flesh and blood&amp;#034; rhetoric.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Speaking of AF, I am under the impression that they don&amp;#039;t believe in any kind of afterlife at all. If I were a little more cynical, I would say this is wonderful news, because then &lt;strong&gt;(DISCLAIMER: DO NOT DO THIS) &lt;/strong&gt;we could all just kill ourselves and have the Nirvana that those silly Theravadins spend so much hard cushion-time pursuing. If there is no memory after death, it doesn&amp;#039;t matter who we hurt by doing this, so we may as well be done with it, right? &lt;strong&gt;(DISCLAIMER: REALLY DONT DO THIS)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Obviously the above view is severely flawed, as the powers show.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I used to be in the same boat as you. I once believed that beings reincarnated in various realities as a sort of &amp;#034;school&amp;#034; for spiritual development, with the end goal being some kind of union with the Absolute, or what have you. Now, after hitting the Dark Night a couple of times, rebirth sounds pretty shit. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It&amp;#039;s a complex topic, that&amp;#039;s for sure.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2014 00:12:12 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578108</guid> <dc:creator>Eric M W</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-08T00:12:12Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578062</link> <description>Another question to consider: If re-birth is not true, why is enlightenment real?  Why do the stages occur as they do?  </description> <pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2014 22:07:31 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5578062</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-07T22:07:31Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577942</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jeff Grove:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Ive been reluctent to share these videos in the past but am putting a few of them out there. They were taken nearly 10 years ago when I was in China training and searching for answers. Please note that the ones with the cows they did suffer and die from having the life force sucked out of them. I dont want to get into the ethics of it. It ws required as part of the training. I can understand were stories of vampires come from as this was basically what it was. Is it scientific proof, no. I have a background in Physics and Applied Mathematics, as a scientists it did shake my world view.&lt;br /&gt;The training is not very complex but requires dedication, it is for monastics and that is why we dont see much evidence around. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;https://jeffstaoistpractice.shutterfly.com/pictures&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;oh and shapeshifters are real dont know about faeries&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I feel like the &amp;#034;voice of reason&amp;#034; might be needed here, by a notable disbeliever in rebirth. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TomTom&lt;/strong&gt;&amp;#034;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Also, a lot of magicians pull off stuff like this, but it isn&amp;#039;t actually real.  Since these videos are from your personal experience I&amp;#039;m assuming it wasn&amp;#039;t some type of illusion or trick and that you were able to do these things yourself.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jen P&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;#034;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Why was everyone laughing during all the feats if this was serious &amp;#034;spiritual&amp;#034; training? The atmosphere in each video seemed more like that of a parlor trick party buzz. Odd.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;Just because it from your personal experience is does not mean it isn&amp;#039;t a trick or illusion. That is the whole point of a trick - a personal experience that isn&amp;#039;t &amp;#034;real&amp;#034;, but appears to be.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And yes, it does have the atmosphere of a parlour trick put on to impress people...The people witnessing these tricks appear to be western and asian tourists, and people like yourself - &amp;#034;seekers&amp;#034; who are pretty keen to have their faith in such things confirmed, and you have people in a poor country putting on these shows and training for which such things are a pretty good income stream - paying for interpreters, transport, accommodation, &amp;#034;donations&amp;#034; etc...The lighter trick I expect was &amp;#034;pulled&amp;#034; off with a magician&amp;#039;s staple - &amp;#034;invisible&amp;#034; see through nylon thread. The burning hole - not quite sure, perhaps a lazer, or a chemical reaction. &lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;I feel sorry for cows though, who I assume had been drugged.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For an insight into the power of these illusions, check out this video by chi master demonstrating by his &amp;#034;powers&amp;#034; with his loyal students&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdUxPLIJVgI&amp;amp;list=PLDtc_uppNe1puLrZj289siVmojKAy9moC&amp;amp;index=1&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;and then see what happens when he encounters somebody who isn&amp;#039;t quite as believing in his powers&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jf3Gc2a0_8&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Jen&lt;/strong&gt;, there is a bona-fide photographic evidence for the existence of fairies - see my first post. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;Daniel, &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;rationalwiki&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;wiki&amp;#x2f;Rupert_Sheldrake"&gt;Rupert Sheldrake&lt;/a&gt; is a bit of a interesting character, and evidence for the &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;michaelshermer&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;2005&amp;#x2f;11&amp;#x2f;ruperts-resonance&amp;#x2f;"&gt;psychic staring stuff&lt;/a&gt; just seems like &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;michaelshermer&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;2005&amp;#x2f;11&amp;#x2f;ruperts-resonance&amp;#x2f;"&gt;pseudoscience at work&lt;/a&gt;, however nicely he writes his books. </description> <pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2014 14:22:24 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577942</guid> <dc:creator>sawfoot _</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-07T14:22:24Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577898</link> <description>Perhaps some day we can settle the debate once and for all on whether re-birth is true or not.  After all it was the Buddha&amp;#039;s primary reason for doing these practices.  With the advent of actualism the forum started leaning toward re-birth not being true. Notable disbelievers in re-birth being Trent, Tarin and Emu Fire Golem.  Before meditating or learning of Buddhism I did not believe in re-birth, but then came to believe it with practice.  However, when the forum started leaning toward it not being true I began to have less conviction about it.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I consider re-birth a perfectly logical possibility, but I have not been able to determine 100% whether it is true or not.  This is despite many many visions and strange experiences.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Before enlightenment I was afraid of death and wanted re-birth to be true.  Now I find the notion of re-birth a disturbing possibility that I&amp;#039;m hoping isn&amp;#039;t actually true. </description> <pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2014 09:41:12 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577898</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-07T09:41:12Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577879</link> <description>Hi TT&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yes magicians pull stuff like that off but it takes alot to prepare  prior to the trick and this sort of stuff happened daily. I have only put a small proportion of the videos up there or spoken about the experiences. I think the laughter was more like a f@#k me he can do that, you know how people can laugh when they are nervous.I dont think anyone found it funny. As to the shapeshifters I was being a bit mischevous and throwing it out there. My teachers teacher told a story of some master he knew that could change into an animal form. From all that I have seen and experienced I have no reason to think he was lying.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hi Jen&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;#034;Why was everyone laughing during all the feats if this was serious &amp;#034;spiritual&amp;#034; training?&amp;#034;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Who said this was serious spirtual training, or is there really a proper way we should have behaved during training, luckily we weren&amp;#039;t made to stand in the corner. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;These teachings have been perserved within Martial Arts and are used for healing&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&amp;#034;Every week we are disappointed that, yet again, not a single undoctored photo or recording emerges, not a single one.&amp;#034; &lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Here is another one of my teachers teacher. This was shot when filming a BBC Documentery called the Ring of Fire&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqonp6VYuoE&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Here is another teacher I trained under &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Ki2-VzUVs&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Here is another master I trained with that could demostrate different abilities&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://www.tiandiqigong.com.au/id1.html&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;His gung fu brother is Robert Peng who can also demonstrate these abilities&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Check out Wang Li Ping he is another high level master who can demstrate these abilities http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wang_Liping_%28Taoist%29 &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Jen two years ago would you have thought it was possible to be enlightened. Meditation has a strange side affect in that you become sensitive to change. You start to perceive things that you didnt notice before. Have you ever had acupuncture. How do you think they come up with the complex energetic mapping of the body, how they discovered all the points and how they worked. It wasnt by making some person a voodoo doll and sticking needles into them using trial and error. If you persist with meditation you will start to feel qi and its movement. The points will start to vibrate. You will start to see qi and the subtle body field. It is shame that this knowledge could be lost, there are only a few people around that pratice acupuncture with qi manipulation it feels like you are plugged into a power socket.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&amp;#034;Yesterday one of my local dharma friends told that the Rainbow Body is &amp;#034;real and has been documented.&amp;#034; Really? Wouldn&amp;#039;t such a thing make it onto the evening news, at the very least? Wouldn&amp;#039;t everyone know about it if it had, even one time, been documented-&amp;#034;&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Actually it has been well documented. The funny thing is that this is not unique to Tibetan Buddhism, you will find it in Taoism, western mystism pratcies, india. Probably the most well known case for westerners can be found in the bible. There is a strong tradition of this in Tibet of over 1000 years, what is wrong with the documented evidence that exists there.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Look up  Br. David Steindl-Rast and Rev. Francis V. Tiso they have been recently researching the rainbow body&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;You have been following a buddhist tradition and so far what you have learnt has become possible. What do you make of the other half of the teachings that cover the powers is it just cultural baggage&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Believe nothing do the experiment yourself&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;appreciated&lt;br /&gt;Jeff</description> <pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2014 08:07:05 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577879</guid> <dc:creator>Jeff Grove</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-07T08:07:05Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577767</link> <description>Daniel,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;How about an essay contest for the prize of admission to the Group Powers retreat. &lt;img alt="emoticon" src="http://www.dharmaoverground.org/dho-theme/images/emoticons/tongue.gif" &gt; &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;p style="text-align: center"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Why I Should Be Admitted to the Group Powers Retreat Even Though I&amp;#039;m Such a Hopeless Noob and Sycophant &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;By The &lt;span style="color: #252525"&gt;&lt;span style="font-family: sans-serif"&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Sotāpanna &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;Jen Pearly&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description> <pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2014 02:56:59 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577767</guid> <dc:creator>_</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-07T02:56:59Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577761</link> <description>I was wondering the same thing as Tom: Why was everyone laughing during all the feats if this was serious &amp;#034;spiritual&amp;#034; training? The atmosphere in each video seemed more like that of a parlor trick party buzz. Odd.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Every week when my husband flips the channel to one of those paranormal shows on A&amp;amp;E channel we hope to no avail for some proof of monsters or goblins this week. Every week we are disappointed that, yet again, not a single undoctored photo or recording emerges, not a single one. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yesterday one of my local dharma friends told that the Rainbow Body is &amp;#034;real and has been documented.&amp;#034; Really? Wouldn&amp;#039;t such a thing make it onto the evening news, at the very least? Wouldn&amp;#039;t everyone know about it if it had, even one time, been documented--such that I wouldn&amp;#039;t have to hear about it at a private lunch with said dharma friend?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Can&amp;#039;t we have some bona fide evidence of faeries and shapeshifters, for god&amp;#039;s sake--some digital captures, &lt;em&gt;something&lt;/em&gt;? A&amp;amp;E awaits rating boosts from &lt;em&gt;Faeries and Shapeshifters: The Season. &lt;/em&gt;</description> <pubDate>Sun, 07 Sep 2014 02:44:31 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577761</guid> <dc:creator>_</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-07T02:44:31Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577568</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jeff Grove:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;Please note that the ones with the cows they did suffer and die from having the life force sucked out of them. I dont want to get into the ethics of it. &lt;br /&gt;https://jeffstaoistpractice.shutterfly.com/pictures&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;oh and shapeshifters are real dont know about faeries&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="font-size: 16px"&gt;Thanks Jeff.  &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m not sure why everyone was laughing at whatever was going on with that cow.  It wasn&amp;#039;t funny at all.  Also, a lot of magicians pull off stuff like this, but it isn&amp;#039;t actually real.  Since these videos are from your personal experience I&amp;#039;m assuming it wasn&amp;#039;t some type of illusion or trick and that you were able to do these things yourself.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;When you say shapeshifters I&amp;#039;m assuming you&amp;#039;re referring to people like &amp;#034;Odo&amp;#034; from Star Trek Deep Space Nine or &amp;#034;Mystique&amp;#034; from X-men?  I can accept the small amount of telekenises and pyromancy in the videos, but shapeshifters!? If that&amp;#039;s real...Holy smokes, wow...</description> <pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2014 07:02:39 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577568</guid> <dc:creator>Tom Tom</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-06T07:02:39Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577469</link> <description>Ive been reluctent to share these videos in the past but am putting a few of them out there. They were taken nearly 10 years ago when I was in China training and searching for answers. Please note that the ones with the cows they did suffer and die from having the life force sucked out of them. I dont want to get into the ethics of it. It ws required as part of the training. I can understand were stories of vampires come from as this was basically what it was. Is it scientific proof, no. I have a background in Physics and Applied Mathematics, as a scientists it did shake my world view.&lt;br /&gt;The training is not very complex but requires dedication, it is for monastics and that is why we dont see much evidence around. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;https://jeffstaoistpractice.shutterfly.com/pictures&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;oh and shapeshifters are real dont know about faeries</description> <pubDate>Sat, 06 Sep 2014 00:29:29 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5577469</guid> <dc:creator>Jeff Grove</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-06T00:29:29Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Sam Harris: An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576927</link> <description>That was one of my concerns also, that he would not address the difficult areas a person can come to.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Any review and modernising of Dzogchen is welcome, as trying to decipher some of the practices is a painful process.  With Sam though I am afraid that he probably hasn&amp;#039;t tested any of his reccommended practices with students and this is all from his own experience.  That he talks with such certainty without any wider validation is worrying, especially as, like you say, this book will no doubt be another best seller for him.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I guess if it gets more people to think seriously about meditation practices then that can only be a bonus in the long run, even if there is some dark night collateral damage.</description> <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:49:14 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576927</guid> <dc:creator>G Mojo</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-04T14:49:14Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Sam Harris: An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576914</link> <description>The true litmus test here isn&amp;#039;t if it worked for Harris, it&amp;#039;s if it worked for his students. This is the case since he is claiming that the flaw in Dzogchen was the way it was taught. Can Dzogchen be put in such system that anyone can teach it or it requires a set of rare skills that only a few people have, in the spirit of direct transmission? I hope that he did some field testing of his teachings before releasing a book that might end up one of the most popular meditation book ever. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I hope also that he will deal with the stages of insight in his book. If we are to set hundred of thousand of people on this path without providing them the elbow room to deal with the side effects as participant of a society,  it will get busy in the psychiatric wards. </description> <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 14:26:18 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576914</guid> <dc:creator>Simon T.</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-04T14:26:18Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Sam Harris: An Atheist’s Guide to Spirituality</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576875</link> <description>Just as an update on this, Sam Harris has a new book out on the 9th called Waking Up which will detail his own meditation path and reccommendations.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Here he is just 2 days ago on the Joe Rogan podcast:&lt;br /&gt;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Q6CWv7IXo&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I&amp;#039;m not sure how I feel about Sam just yet.  I think he has a great mind and certainly makes me think about things from a different perspective sometimes, but I do find him quite humourless and joyless for someone who has been meditating for so long.  I also don&amp;#039;t think he&amp;#039;s doing anything new here, with separating meditation from Buddhism, where other people have done better (Danial, Kenneth Folks and Shinzen Young imo - who all have more heart).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I will probably read the book regardless but wondered what everyone else thinks..?</description> <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 11:49:01 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576875</guid> <dc:creator>G Mojo</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-04T11:49:01Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576517</link> <description>Actually, there is now a chapter in MCTB2 called &amp;#034;Those Damn Fairies&amp;#034; inspired by this thread and the Powers section is significantly expanded in general, mostly because of this thread.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;@Paul: not everyone here (or in general) agrees or understands that you can modify your experience in extreme ways and to suit your tastes and paradigms. A few do, and somewhat fewer can and have done it, but most people haven&amp;#039;t ever seen that as part of the level of experience that would cause them to agree with you on that. Just so you understand that you are making assumptions about everyone here would agree on.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As to science and the influence of others and the interaction of various people&amp;#039;s consciousness in ways that might not fit with a narrow scientific materialist framework, I suggest you read a very nice book that takes this on called The Sense of Being Stared At, by Rupert Sheldrake. Fascinating stuff, very down to earth, very scientific, very clean writing.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Actually, in the spirit of wanting to play more with these things, my next retreat (the first since 2003) will be my birthday present to myself, two weeks, and hopefully will be a small group retreat (if we do it here, I can&amp;#039;t reasonably host more than about two other people, if we do it elsewhere then it gets easier but much more expensive, and larger groups make for more risk of unfortunate group dynamics, which an be a serious problem in this sort of work). If all goes well, it will take place next February around my 46th birthday. The theme of the retreat will be Group Powers. I hope to have a few dedicated, talented, mature practitioners who can get down to business and not mess around. The general plan will be to do candle-flame nearly all day long for about 10 days until concentration is extremely strong and then spend about 4 days or so playing with what a small group of people with really strong concentration can do with that in an interactive sense with a reasonable set of scientific methods in place. The real problem will be finding a few people who have the required skill-sets, those being a proven ability to get to the Malleable and Wieldly stage of concentration (where you can modify your reality in extreme ways just by inclining gently in that direction), who have a proven track record of being able to handle the very strange stuff that can happen when you get your concentration that strong and not freak out, who will be willing and able to follow some pretty strict ground-rules of conduct (both internal and external), and who can keep a handle on interpersonal issues and just stick to the task at hand, as well as who have the time and interest. That&amp;#039;s unfortunately a pretty high bar. This is not an open invitation, BTW, just putting it out there to see what happens. Given that I have so little time for this sort of thing and that this will be such a rare opportunity for me, I am going to be really picky about who I share this experience with, as the potential for disaster is very real, and if the opportunity were wasted on interpersonal stuff getting out of hand or people not being able to stay on track, that would be a real loss. I have been thinking about asking Leigh Brasington if he would be interested, if that gives you a sense of who I think might fit the bill. That I wrote this in a dense block of text about 8 months after first thinking about it at the end of a very long thread shows you how much I am hesitant to put this out there.</description> <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2014 08:45:06 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576517</guid> <dc:creator>Daniel M. Ingram</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-03T08:45:06Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576228</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;I can see why you might be grumpy Eric, having to use these inventions of Western materialist bullshit, such as &amp;#034;a computer&amp;#034; and &amp;#034;the internet&amp;#034;. Perhaps we could continue this discussion off-forum by communicating with our psychic powers, or perhaps arrange a time to meet in an astral realm?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The funny thing is I&amp;#039;ve actually done this before. Unfortunately, the progress of insight has put a stop to such things for me, at least for now.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I don&amp;#039;t have a problem with computers or the internet. Science and materialism aren&amp;#039;t the same thing, as much as some people want them to be.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Where can I buy the hat in your user icon?</description> <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:01:05 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576228</guid> <dc:creator>Eric M W</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-02T19:01:05Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576150</link> <description>I just want to say a congratulations to Jen, Mark and Eric for getting through this thread - you all win a free hat. Sorry to say, I have no Arhats left in stock, just Sotāpanamas (though if I find out you have skimmed read posts I reserve the right to withdraw said gift). &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Paul:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I find it strange that so many arhats seem to overestimate the probabilistic value of anecdotal evidence. It&amp;#039;s a bit disturbing to me and I hope if I become an arhat I won&amp;#039;t have the same problem.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I must say I am bit confused - you want to end the endless cycle of rebirths so you can reach ultimate peace by becoming annihilated and reaching nirvana? Really, life can&amp;#039;t be that bad, can it!?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Eric M:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you should decline this experiment, please keep your views to yourself. There is no sense in muddying up a reasonable discussion regarding this topic if you are too afraid to see for yourself due to your personal psych issues surrounding western materialist bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I can see why you might be grumpy Eric, having to use these inventions of Western materialist bullshit, such as &amp;#034;a computer&amp;#034; and &amp;#034;the internet&amp;#034;. Perhaps we could continue this discussion off-forum by communicating with our psychic powers, or perhaps arrange a time to meet in an astral realm?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Eric:&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;First of all this is a weird fucking thread.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;span style="color: #111111"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;This is a monumentally fantastic fucking thread! In fact, it is my favorite DhO thread of all time (so far)!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, I want to go ahead and say here what I have wanted to say for a good while: &lt;strong&gt;I appreciate Sawfoot&amp;#039;s presence on this forum. &lt;/strong&gt;And the minute we exclude these other perspectives is the minute discussions here become significantly less helpful to me, my practice, and my ability to think clearly and articulate counterperspectives. And I suggest that I&amp;#039;m not the only one to benefit. For example, his challenges provoke Daniel&amp;#039;s most penetrating, inspiring, and subtle writing--this alone is reason to thank Sawfoot for continually challenging what may otherwise become a too settled and comfortable groupthink forum, which would be boring and much less helpful than it is. The Judas kiss makes both the case and conditions for liberation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Also, Sawfoot is funny as hell. Even when people think he is being nasty, I&amp;#039;m over here laughing my ass off. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I am not sure where all these people are that think I am being nasty. I admit I often give &amp;#034;Saint&amp;#034; Daniel a hard time, but then it is an utterly centreless, utterly agentless, truly remarkable field of being, which has massively reduced its level of suffering (orders of magnitude less than the past), and so being nasty to &amp;#034;Sage&amp;#034; Daniel is a bit like being nasty to small bookshelf, or a whicker chair. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you want to see a&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;dharmaoverground&amp;#x2e;org&amp;#x2f;web&amp;#x2f;guest&amp;#x2f;discussion&amp;#x2f;-&amp;#x2f;message_boards&amp;#x2f;view_message&amp;#x2f;5054815&amp;#x23;_19_message_5061214"&gt; nasty comment,&lt;/a&gt; check out the Sutta Arahat Chuck. Now that man is a serious bad-ass. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Speaking of kisses, and asses, &amp;#034;his challenges provoke Daniel&amp;#039;s most penetrating, inspiring, and subtle writing&amp;#034; c&amp;#039;mon Jen, based on your three doors thread, I have tiny little sense you are starting to make some progress....&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Some people have leakier boundaries than others. For them, the line between powers and psychosis is likely to be thin, the causes for each being inseparable. That even practitioners who are highly functional keep these practices hush-hush at work and elsewhere, and are cautious about speaking freely even on this forum, speaks to how closely associated psychosis and magick practice are in the realm of social constructions. So know thyself, know thy vulnerabilities.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;I mainly wanted to say thanks for your contribution above (part excerpted here) - people yourselves and Tom Tom provide an invaluable (and balanced) perspective on the powers, and I felt that we did find a rough consensus in this thread in seeing the powers as a form of &amp;#034;functional psychosis&amp;#034; (though some might be put off by that term or slant). </description> <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 08:40:20 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576150</guid> <dc:creator>sawfoot _</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-02T08:40:20Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576072</link> <description>&lt;div class="quote-title"&gt;Jen Pearly:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="quote"&gt;&lt;div class="quote-content"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Hmm, I&amp;#039;m not sure what you mean by this, Eric. I&amp;#039;m not sure that I drew that conclusion from my experiences of Mind &amp;amp; Body. In MCTB2, in the front matter, Daniel talks about meditation as &amp;#034;rewiring&amp;#034; the &amp;#034;brain.&amp;#034; I&amp;#039;ve pointed out there in marginalia that in MCTB1 he later says that we never experience as sense data any &amp;#034;brain.&amp;#034; Elsewhere, Daniel has written that &amp;#034;mind&amp;#034; and &amp;#034;consciousness&amp;#034; don&amp;#039;t really exist as entities, either: all that exists is &amp;#034;sensations&amp;#034; manifesting &amp;#034;awareness,&amp;#034; where &amp;#034;awareness&amp;#034; is also a problematic reification. Trying to use a representational system to parse representational distinctions is dicey at best. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;When I attended a Tibetan center, students there were taught about multiple &amp;#034;levels&amp;#034; of consciousness, the most subtle one having really no attributes, being only a kind of energetics that survives biological death, whereas all the other levels die with the physical brain&amp;#039;s death. Their explanation was that the brain is a &amp;#034;support&amp;#034; for consciousness, though not the same as that subtle consciousness.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Much is written these days about the hypothesis that what we Westerners call &amp;#034;consciousness&amp;#034; is an epi-phenomenon of a complex brain, an &amp;#034;emergent&amp;#034; meta-behavior, such that the result is greater than the sum of its parts, though still reliant on them as a substratum. &lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Right, let me clarify.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The brain obviously plays a huge part in consciousness. Consciousness can be dramatically affected by brain trauma, psychoactive chemicals, medical conditions such as dementia, and so on. This is basically indisputable, and it would seem perfectly reasonable to say that the brain generates consciousness based on these cases as evidence.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But, there is some trouble with this approach. First of all, dreams. Why do we dream? There doesn&amp;#039;t seem to be an answer in the scientific community, at least not yet. This is one example of a normal but very altered state of consciousness that doesn&amp;#039;t seem to fit into the materialist framework. But it&amp;#039;s not a huge problem, it&amp;#039;s merely an oddity. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;But there are some more data points that conflict with the materialist viewpoint. Near-death experiences, for example. There are cases when a patient reports floating above the room while being revived, and accurately reporting details such as the words of the medical staff. What do we do with this? Even the DMT-dump hypothesis (debunked in &lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;amazon&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife&amp;#x2f;dp&amp;#x2f;1451695195&amp;#x2f;"&gt;this book&lt;/a&gt;, btw) can&amp;#039;t explain things like this. Consciousness would have to exist independent of the brain for this to happen, which doesn&amp;#039;t fly if we are adopting the materialist viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;And of course, the powers and the paranormal in general really fly in the face of the materialist view. If one masters concentration practice and hits really hard formless realms, or meditates with certain kasinas or mantras, this stuff is bound to pop up. Seeing visions, communicating with beings, and that sort of thing-- what is going on? Especially in situations where we can travel out of body and see what is going on in a certain location, and finding out later that we were perceiving accurately.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So we&amp;#039;re at an impasse. On one hand, the brain is obviously very important in how consciousness manifests and operates. On the other hand, siddhis. What to make of all this?&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Here&amp;#039;s the theory I learned when I was first getting interested in this sort of thing, and I think I&amp;#039;ve seen it reiterated in a few other places. The brain and consciousness are like a television and a signal, respectively. The television does not generate the signal, but it interprets and &amp;#034;manifests&amp;#034; it. The signal is still quite independent of the television. If the television is damaged in any way, it does not mean that the signal is altered or destroyed. It simply means that the apparatus is not functioning properly.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for Daniel talking about rewiring the brain, I can&amp;#039;t speak for the man himself, but I think he&amp;#039;s more or less using conventional language to communicate with a Western audience. Daniel also talks about powers, for example. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;My personal pet theory, be it right or wrong, is that enlightenment is more fundamental than the brain. The brain is impermanent and not a self, part of the conditioned field of sensations that we call &amp;#034;reality.&amp;#034; The fundamental shifts in perspective that are called Paths are not conditioned. Now, I&amp;#039;m certain that the brain of an arahat is very different than your average joe. The big question is: do changes in the brain cause enlightenment, or does enlightenment cause changes in the brain? &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As for the first nana, it&amp;#039;s another one of my pet theories, but notice: there are physical sensations, there are mental sensations, and there is also the primordial awareness that is watching both occur. Maybe I&amp;#039;m running into some kind of anagami-cage with this interpretation, but it seems that this awareness is separate from mental and physical sensations, and thus separate from the brain,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I hope all that makes sense.</description> <pubDate>Tue, 02 Sep 2014 01:15:28 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5576072</guid> <dc:creator>Eric M W</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-02T01:15:28Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5575784</link> <description>First of all this is a weird fucking thread.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Second of all, anyone here who doubts the existence of &amp;#034;powers&amp;#034; is invited to experiment for themselves. If you can attain hard jhanas, particularly formless realms, you will have absolutely no problems. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;amazon&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;You-Are-Psychic-Clairvoyant-Reading&amp;#x2f;dp&amp;#x2f;0738705926&amp;#x2f;"&gt;You Are Psychic: The Art of Clairvoyant Reading and Healing&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;amazon&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;The-Way-Shaman-Michael-Harner&amp;#x2f;dp&amp;#x2f;0062503731&amp;#x2f;"&gt;The Way of the Shaman&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;amazon&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;Cave-Cosmos-Shamanic-Encounters-Another&amp;#x2f;dp&amp;#x2f;1583945466&amp;#x2f;"&gt;Cave and Cosmos&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;amazon&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;The-End-Materialism-Evidence-Paranormal&amp;#x2f;dp&amp;#x2f;1572246456&amp;#x2f;"&gt;The End of Materialism: How Evidence of the Paranormal is Bringing Science and Spirit Together&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;a href="http&amp;#x3a;&amp;#x2f;&amp;#x2f;www&amp;#x2e;amazon&amp;#x2e;com&amp;#x2f;Life-After-Investigation-Phenomenon--Survival-Bodily&amp;#x2f;dp&amp;#x2f;0062517392&amp;#x2f;"&gt;Life After Life&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;If you should decline this experiment, please keep your views to yourself. There is no sense in muddying up a reasonable discussion regarding this topic if you are too afraid to see for yourself due to your personal psych issues surrounding western materialist bullshit.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One further comment: The theory that consciousness is generated by the brain is debunked by the first nana, Mind and Body. </description> <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2014 14:58:32 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5575784</guid> <dc:creator>Eric M W</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-01T14:58:32Z</dc:date> </item> <item> <title>RE: Scientific proof for fairies</title> <link>http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5575743</link> <description>Nearly everyone on this forum agrees that humans are capable of controlling their subjective experience to an incredible and perhaps limitless degree. When we discuss magick, we shouldn&amp;#039;t argue over this point that we all agree on. So I have no problem believing in the effectiveness of using energy channels to eliminate back pain, or seeing golden light emitted from your body while doing so. All of this is in the realm of subjective experience.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, I, and some of the other people arguing here, have a big problem with mystical claims about abilities to control others, read the minds of others, etc. That is because these claims are in a different category, outside the realm of subjective experience. I don&amp;#039;t understand why it is that so many arhats believe in these sorts of claims, and readily fool themselves into believing in these mystical ideas with such a low level of evidence. Let&amp;#039;s take the example with the marker: it seems to me not the slighest bit unlikely that the guy with the marker also noticed the smell, and decided to do something about it shortly after Daniel decided to do something about it. This story doesn&amp;#039;t strike me as even slightly unusual. However, I&amp;#039;m sure if people who buy into this magickal paradigm dig, they can come up with more unusual stories. Considering there are more than 10000 days in 30 years, it&amp;#039;s not at all unlikely that someone will experience a highly unusual coincidence over such a long period of time. We have science because anecdotal evidence isn&amp;#039;t valid, because bizarre coincidences are practically guaranteed to occur over a long span of time, not to mention faulty observations of the observer. This is why we need science to test these sorts of claims. There are some fluke studies that could be used as evidence but the bulk of scientific evidence is against these sorts of powers. I will certainly need more evidence than &amp;#034;this one time someone closed a marker in a smelly room shortly after I willed him too, also people I know who buy into this magical paradigm have similar stories.&amp;#034;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I find it strange that so many arhats seem to overestimate the probabilistic value of anecdotal evidence. It&amp;#039;s a bit disturbing to me and I hope if I become an arhat I won&amp;#039;t have the same problem.</description> <pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2014 12:29:53 GMT</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dharmaoverground.org/c/message_boards/find_message?p_l_id=&amp;messageId=5575743</guid> <dc:creator>Paul Bradford</dc:creator> <dc:date>2014-09-01T12:29:53Z</dc:date> </item> </channel> </rss> 