| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Buy Kratom Extract  Buy Bali Kratom Powder  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Red Vein Kratom  Cultivation Supplies |
| |||||||
 gribochek enthusiast Registered: 04/18/99 Posts: 286 Last seen: 19 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
Almost stepped out of the role on that one, eh?
| |||||||
|
gribochek enthusiast Registered: 04/18/99 Posts: 286 Last seen: 19 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
I am not sure what your point is with your examples.
Ok, I'll try to explain. Take the speed of light for example. Or any other _basic_ physical law, such as any Maxwell equation, E=MC(squared), F=GmM/r(squared), etc. Clearly, many things can be "explained" in terms of these laws, some of these laws can even be "explained" in terms of other ones, but there is a basic minimal set of laws which can not be "explained". What does your science choose to do with those? It chooses to be silent and considers it "unscientific" to ask "Why is the speed of light this and not that". In general, take a directly observable phenomenon P. What happens to the phenomenon P in the "scientific" mind, like yours is that a) P is either considered worthy of further exploration, or P is considered unworthy of further exploration. The former would be anything scientists study, the latter is things scientists don't study. To the latter category belong all things which are "already known" -- everyday events, questions not considered scientific (why the brick fell on me and not others), questions not thought to have a plausible answer (why is E=MC(Squared)) etc. b). If P is considered worthy of further exploration (which is the minority of things, mind you) it will be scrutinized either by observation or by contemplation until another phenomenon Q is found that is said to explain P. c). Q could again be of several sorts. Q could be either worthy of further study, in which case a phenomenon R will be uncovered that is said to "explain" Q (go to step b) or Q could be one of things already explained (in which case the exploration stops and P is said to have been "explained", but step b. still has been valid for Q at some point in the past) or Q could be considered unworthy of further exploration (for example that the speed of light is this and not that). In the end of the set of phenomena explored (E) another set of phenomena is produced (B) that is said to explain the whole of (E). (B) is the basic minimal set of laws that explain all other things. Do you get the idea? By "explanation" you shift focus from one phenomenon to another until you tire and want to go no further. The way science chooses when to stop is a matter of convenience. How one can be satisfied with this state of things and choose to follow "science" is beyond me, reallly. -- Grib. P.S. I will now make a point of reminding you of things you didn't answer. So you can no longer avoid things that are "inconvenient to answer". Please explain to me why in all these years science was unable to produce a living thing, and still have the audacity to claim that life was created "accidentally". Edited by gribochek (01/26/02 11:37 AM)
| |||||||
 Swami Eggshell Walker  Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
Ok, I will be more explicit. Your examples have NOTHING in common with Crop Circles, for example, which can be tested for anomolies; nor most any of the fanciful stuff posted here. You have veered off into a whole new territory, which is fine. This is an area of almost pure conjecture - the why and how of existence.
Science works. That is undeniable. Do we now know more than ever before about our universe? Yes, but there is a point where science can say no more, that is undeniable. That may always be so, no matter how deep our understanding gets. Does that mean that it is an unworthy pursuit to try to unlock some of the secrets? Of course not. I would love for all the science bashers to have all their toys taken away: the cars, television and stereo, the heat and light, the hot running water and sanitation, the cheap and abundant food that stocks your grocery shelves - then the real whining would begin and perhaps some modicum of appreciation for the efforts of our experimental forefathers would set in. Beyond that, it seems like you are trying to force some answer out of me about the "isness" of things. At that point it is time to shrug one's shoulders and ingest 5 grams of fungus. --------------------  The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
So, now, let's see... The amount of adrenaline raises every time the object is in close proximity. This must be due to the sympathetic nervous function. The erection you experience is due to the increased blood pressure in the pelvic area. Dreaming of the object of your passion must be due to subconscious brain activity while the brain chemistry is replenishing itself. Really, I must conclude you are not in love at all, this is all just body chemistry and instinctual desire to procreate. If you try to claim that you are not attracted to any other person, then I will claim this is an illusion caused by social conditioning and pherromonal compatibility with this particular object.
Very good analysis. I am so proud of you. You win a swami-junior gold star and are well on your way to becoming an arrogant know-it-all .  I told my new lady that my attraction was all just pheromonal compatibility and instinctual desire to procreate. She got pissed and left - oh well. -------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
Adamist ℚṲℰϟ✞ЇѺℵ ℛ∃Åʟḯ†У    Registered: 11/23/01 Posts: 10,211 Loc: Bloomington, IN Last seen: 8 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
Swami do you realize that some of your automatic debunking methods create an environment of fear on these boards? After posting my first few times and having my words picked apart and refuted, I was scared to post anything else along the "unexplainable by science" lines.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that we need a degree of skepticism to keep us grounded.... but when your arrogant about it, thats not helping anyone.
| |||||||
|
gribochek enthusiast Registered: 04/18/99 Posts: 286 Last seen: 19 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
Ok. So we agree on some points at least.
it seems like you are trying to force some answer out of me about the "isness" of things. Yes, but not only. The arrogance of science does not come from the drive to explore further. The arrogance of science comes from the drive to explore less! When you say "I don't believe laws of nature suspend themselves to allow for a miracle" what you say effectively is "I don't believe the laws _we_know_ don't work in this particular case". You are not preoccupied with the laws of nature, because naturally if there are laws of nature, they must work always, that's their definition after all, but you are preoccupied with the current knowledge and how well it stands up to the test by new and strange phenomena. And this is where arrogance starts. By saying "there are no aliens" or "there is no God" but "there is chance" and "there is atmospheric phenomenon" you effectively say "the building of knowledge we have built is sacred" instead of saying "we know very little, let's find out more". Clearly, presented with a community of fanatics like Shroomism, you find yourself in a very beneficial position, where this attitude seems just and moral. There is no denial of that. But the ways and reasons you use to refute their arguments are closed off and often quite dirty (like the dictionary thing you have invented). Let's talk for a minute about the phenomenon of "closed-eye vision" I have mentioned. When you say there is no such thing, do you mean to say that I am a liar and a sensationalist? I hope not, because it would be stupid, for personally I have nothing invested in other people believing me. Then you must be saying that I misperceive something? This may be true, but I think what you are saying that I "misexplain" the phenomenon. You act as if I have said something about natural laws suspending themselves to allow me to see with my eyes closed. Really, must you think I this stupid? No, what is really going on is that this example challanges the way you think about the world. It challanges the premice that vision happens through photons hitting my retina which clearly can't be the case with one's eyes closed, right? So you invent a formula that keeps the basic premise in place. But my point is not that natural laws suspend themselves, but rather that we don't know the natural laws and never will, mind you, for the nature of being defies description in formulas and scientific articles. And this is something where you get scared of letting go of the baggage you have in your head. You are afraid to think of yourself as stupid and not knowing, and this is called arrogance. -- Grib.
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
Ok. So we agree on some points at least.
Of course we do. There is no such thing as an anit-Gribochek, nor an anti-Swami. There is some intersection between any two minds. The arrogance of science does not come from the drive to explore further. The arrogance of science comes from the drive to explore less! I have frequently heard the question, "Why don't scientists look further into the UFO (or other) phenomena?" Scientists are people with limited time and resources. So which scientists "should" research your favorite pet theory? As a computer scientist "should" I investigate aerial phenomena? My point is: because someone chooses NOT to explore a certain area, because A: they do not find it interesting or B: they do not believe that said research will bear fruit - you therefore determine that that is arrogance? By saying "there are no aliens" or "there is no God" but "there is chance" and "there is atmospheric phenomenon" you effectively say "the building of knowledge we have built is sacred" instead of saying "we know very little, let's find out more". To research something, first one must start on solid ground. I have never said "There are no aliens." rather "The evidence for the existence of aliens on earth, is very weak." So to get to the heart of the matter, one MUST brush aside misperceptions and hoaxes to see what is left. The noise has to be removed to see if there is, in fact, a signal. When you say there is no such thing, do you mean to say that I am a liar and a sensationalist? I hope not, because it would be stupid, for personally I have nothing invested in other people believing me. Then you must be saying that I misperceive something? This may be true, but I think what you are saying that I "misexplain" the phenomenon. I offered a possible explanation for the phenomena and suggested a test. Seems many people misunderstand no matter how many times I say it. To reiterate: I would love to find just one thing considered to be paranormal or outside of the accepted scientific paradigm. However, I will not be easily fooled merely because I have a desire to believe - this is called discrimination. I need substance, not just stories. You act as if I have said something about natural laws suspending themselves to allow me to see with my eyes closed. Really, must you think I this stupid? I have made no judgement as to your intelligence, either publicly or privatley. No, what is really going on is that this example challanges the way you think about the world An invalid assumption. .It challanges the premice that vision happens through photons hitting my retina... This is not a premise, but a fact. ..which clearly can't be the case with one's eyes closed, right? So you invent a formula that keeps the basic premise in place. I offer a possible explanation for your experience and invite you to show me that my explanation is incorrect. But my point is not that natural laws suspend themselves, but rather that we don't know the natural laws and never will, mind you, for the nature of being defies description in formulas and scientific articles. This is a sweeping statement that argues against itself by the very nature of the method that we are using to communicate. If there was not some modicum of understanding, then technology would not exist. And this is something where you get scared of letting go of the baggage you have in your head. You are afraid to think of yourself as stupid and not knowing, and this is called arrogance. This is an amazing and incorrect assumption that you make. I am one of the most avid explorers around. I read several books a week and have done serious research in many fields both scientific and esoteric. This is the attitude of a lifetime student trying to grok the world that he lives in, not one who has the answers. I have no fear that something that you may show me will turn my world upside down. On the contrary, I would be most ecstatic. This is why, when possible, that I offer some way to test someone's hypothesis, such as your closed-eye visuals. In 25 years though, I all have ever got from ANYONE postulating some form of esoterica is talk. Telekinesis - move something for me. Never happened. Telepathy - read my mind. Never happened. Breatharianism - let me live with you 24 hours per day for a week to monitor your food intake. Turned down. UFOs - let me see just one. Astrology - have tested that on several occasions. Failed every time. Closed-eye vision - navigate unknown terrain for me while blindfolded. Very simple. Doesn't require any laboratory nor hyperbole, merely a simple demonstration. What is so confounded difficult about that? Respond with a dozen paragraphs about my world-view and mindset. Who cares? SHOW ME! All of this stuff to me is no different than being a good consumer. New weight-loss product or cancer cure? Show me the double-blind university-tested clinical trials. Validation is neither evil nor close-minded. It is a rational and intelligent stance. -------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
gribochek enthusiast Registered: 04/18/99 Posts: 286 Last seen: 19 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
I have frequently heard the question, "Why don't scientists look further into the UFO (or other) phenomena?"
You know, myself I don't care about aliens. Nor clarvoyance, nor telepathy, nor any other thing like this, because I know that these are but a few of the endless, truly endless set of possibilities. I will not be running around trying to prove to everyone aliens exist, because a). I don't know that and b). if they did this wouldn't be important to prove anyway. I would love to find just one thing considered to be paranormal or outside of the accepted scientific paradigm. Ok. Life on earth. Please tell me it has been scientifically explained, please! I need substance, not just stories. You are calling me a liar, indeed! Well, you see, here is my point. In your pursuit of "truth" you would only consider reproducible events. Here is the problem, not all phenomena is reproducible at will. As simple as that. The closed-eye vision thing happened to me twice out of 10 -- 15 trips I had. What matters for its occurrence I don't know. The most prominent occurrence happened on the island of Cyprus. Will I be willing to go out of my way to Cyprus to prove something to you? Yes, if you pay for it  And even though my wife seems to be more apt at this particular thing the phenomenon still couldn't be reproduced easily and surely. Is this the grounds for not considering it? No, what is really going on is that this example challanges the way you think about the world An invalid assumption. This is not an assumption. Just think what sort of impact on your world view a thing like this would have. photons hitting my retina... This is not a premise, but a fact. Yes, but this is a narrow definition of vision (optic vision). Blind people have a limited vision using their white sticks to probe the terrain, this is not optic. And I never claimed that vision with eyes closed is optic, it feels totally different from optic, but it is sure as hell more vivid then with probing sticks. If there was not some modicum of understanding, then technology would not exist. Did you study history of technology? Electricity was discovered by accident then explained by science. Radio was discovered by accident and then explained by science. Transistors were discovered by accident then explained by science. Psychedelic mushrooms were discovered by accident then explained by science. I could go on. There are many more things discovered without understanding then those first predicted by science. Your argument about technology doesn't work. New weight-loss product or cancer cure? Show me the double-blind university-tested clinical trials. Go read some articles by Garry Null. You'll find out amazing things about university-tested clinical trials. (out of time, will write more later). -- Grib
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
Ok. Life on earth. Please tell me it has been scientifically explained, please!
Unknown causation does not equal paranormal, it means insufficient data. I need substance, not just stories. You are calling me a liar, indeed! I truely don't mean to be insulting, but if my statement is calling you a liar then you have either a severe reading comprehension problem or extreme paranoia. You are seeing something that I never wrote. Well, you see, here is my point. In your pursuit of "truth" you would only consider reproducible events. I have covered this in depth on many occasions, I don't know what you get out of me repeating it again. For any phenomena to be understood,studied or accepted, it must be repeatable, otherwise two things are possible: A. The reporter of the event misperceived what actually happened. (You can argue on this one ad nauseum, but there have been hundreds of psychological tests done to show that human perception is frequently faulty, so this MUST be ruled out for a new truth to be accepted.) B. The causation is unknown. Since A: You have not navigated an unknown course blindfolded in front of impartial observers, there is a possiblity (a strong possibility IMHO), that you misperceived what happened to you. Intoxicated people misperceive things all too frequently. ("Hey, I only had a few drinks and am OK to drive." - right!) And B: It doesn't happen everytime, you can't even state for certainty that it is a mushroom trance that gives you this siddha. It could have been a shellfish that you ate on Cypress. Here is the problem, not all phenomena is reproducible at will. As simple as that. The closed-eye vision thing happened to me twice out of 10 -- 15 trips I had. What matters for its occurrence I don't know. Is this the grounds for not considering it? Depends what you mean by "considering" it. I have considered it and believe it to be a by-product of mushroom intoxication in the same way that breathing walls are a by-product. Do the walls actually move ( in consensus reality)? No. For me to accept it as a real phenomena takes more than an anecdote. Yes, but this is a narrow definition of vision (optic vision). Blind people have a limited vision using their white sticks to probe the terrain, this is not optic. It is called touch, and while they may form a sketchy internal picture of the world, does not qualify as vision. I would whip out Webster here, but don't want to drive you into a frenzy. If there was not some modicum of understanding, then technology would not exist. Your argument about technology doesn't work. I have to say that this is the most far-out statement that you have made to date. As an electrical and software engineer, I strongly disagree with you there. Try building a circuit board without understanding the laws behind electron theory. Try to build a new car engine without understanding thermodynamics, metallurgy, etc. This is why people go to college, to absorb as much of the current body of knowledge available and hopefully to add to it. Technology is undertsanding and application of natural laws. Whether said laws were discovered by accident or on purpose is irrelevant to technology. You made me laugh about the accidental discovery of the transistor. It was discovered at the Bell Research lab, that is what happens in research labs - that is why they exist. (Once again the Swam shows incredible restraint in not whipping out the dictionary.) New weight-loss product or cancer cure? Show me the double-blind university-tested clinical trials. Go read some articles by Garry Null. You'll find out amazing things about university-tested clinical trials. Independent tests may be flawed, so what? It is a starting point. Instead though, you would have me swallow whole any outrageous claim made by a manufacturer/advertiser with NOTHING to back it up? (out of time, will write more later). Gee, I thought time was but an illusion... -------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
gribochek enthusiast Registered: 04/18/99 Posts: 286 Last seen: 19 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
Unknown causation does not equal paranormal, it means insufficient data.
Ok, this brings us much closer to the root of our disagreement. Please define paranormal for me (and, please, be so kind, don't appeal to the dictionary, say what _you_ think). You are calling me a liar, indeed! I truely don't mean to be insulting, but if my statement is calling you a liar then you have either a severe reading comprehension problem or extreme paranoia. You are seeing something that I never wrote. This was ment as a half joke. I don't get insulted by anything, don't worry. A reading comprehention problem you mention is called reading between the lines, thank you. For any phenomena to be understood,studied or accepted, it must be repeatable, Understood? May be, depending on what one meens by understanding. Studied? Ok, I agree, definitely. But accepted? This is the most outrageous thing I heard! Why would lack of reproducibility prevent acceptance? Do we accept that sharks eat people sometimes along the coast of Australia? Can we reproduce it? Do we accept a beautiful sunset which we are told about by a friend who witnessed it, or do we demand a video-tape? No, you couldn't have meant "accepted".... Try building a circuit board without understanding the laws behind electron theory. I must make two points here. 1. Not with circuit boards, but with chemistry, significant practical success has been made by experimenters who knew nothing about atoms, molecules and the periodic table. 2. Although it is true that the understanding you talk about has strong practical significance, you can not with any degree of confidence say that it is "true" in some kind of universal sense unrelated to practical implications. Many examples can be given. Take every single scientific theory that has been superceded by another one. It was believed to be true and had practical use, then it didn't hold up to some new phenomenon and new theory emerged. Do you have any illusion that the current body of scientific theory is some kind of a "final draft"? Additionally one must consider examples such as accupuncture. (I hope in view of overwhelming amount of scientific evidence supporting it you will not claim that it is some sort of a hoax) Accupuncture has no understanding in the paradigm of current medical theory. It does, however, have a theory behind it, it talks about Chi and channels and chacras and stuff. Very useful for practical purposes, yet, does Chi and channels exist? It was discovered at the Bell Research lab It is irrelevant where it was discovered. By "accidental" here I mean to say that the theoretical science that existed at the time of discovery was unable to predict or assist the discovery. Kind of like with the three sixes in a row, did you say in advance "I am inventing a device to control electrical current with weaker current"? If not, then this was an accident. (Once again the Swam shows incredible restraint in not whipping out the dictionary.) I bow in deep apreciation. -- Grib.
| |||||||
|
ArCh_TemPlaR enthusiast Registered: 07/15/01 Posts: 200 Last seen: 21 years, 1 month |
| ||||||
|
Swami:
I have frequently heard the question, "Why don't scientists look further into the UFO (or other) phenomena?" Scientists are people with limited time and resources. So which scientists "should" research your favorite pet theory? As a computer scientist "should" I investigate aerial phenomena? My point is: because someone chooses NOT to explore a certain area, because A: they do not find it interesting or B: they do not believe that said research will bear fruit - you therefore determine that that is arrogance? I'll add C: Institutes responsibly for the majority of funding studies and researching are very conservative. Therefore, researchers who are honestly interested in such studies are out of luck. I'lll add D: field careerists are not going to risk their necks or their credibility. Maybe it's more as fear and conservatism, than it is egos? I have covered this in depth on many occasions, I don't know what you get out of me repeating it again. For any phenomena to be understood,studied or accepted, it must be repeatable, otherwise two things are possible: Yeah, I remember laughing at such an assumption you made to one of my posts [chants]. Not that I was laughing at you, just the flabbergasted reaction I got. The way you phrased it within the context of what I conveyed is that you were implying I couldn't be trusted to just observe the phenomenon. As you said you couldn't even trust yourself from your own "filters and bias", it seems you manifest this characteristic upon others? Anyhow, I do understand your way of thinking, but it seems you take the fun out of it! Or maybe through your searching, you drive too hard that you miss the beauty of the experiences people share here. My experiences I posted before I can never truly depict or duplicate the nature as it happened in mere words. You had to be there to see the moment unfold. It is not a phenomenon that science can reproduce objectively. We cannot objectified a human being as a lab rat in search of unequivocal truth in the name of science. Anyone who drives to such epistemological extreme is suspect of deeper internal issues.. And just for clarity, that last bit is just something to reflect on, I do not mean I'm pointing the finger at you particularily..
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
Maybe it's more as fear and conservatism, than it is egos?
My basic point is that we are all (more or less) free to spend our time and energies how we want. If you want to research UFOs, well then, God bless you, but don't decry the fact that I or others don't do it for you. The way you phrased it within the context of what I conveyed is that you were implying I couldn't be trusted to just observe the phenomenon. As you said you couldn't even trust yourself from your own "filters and bias", it seems you manifest this characteristic upon others? Once again. this is NOT the swami's judgement, is observable fact. Misperception abounds everywhere. Two people witness a bank robbery. One sees a black Ford getaway car, the other sees a blue Chevy. Venus is the number 1 object misidentified as a UFO. Even UFOlogists will acknowledge this as fact. So to look past this, perceptual error MUST BE ruled out first to eliminate the noise from the signal. Anyhow, I do understand your way of thinking, but it seems you take the fun out of it! It all depends whether one is seeking amusement or truth... you drive too hard that you miss the beauty of the experiences people share here. I don't see superstition as beauty; perhaps you do. Thousands believe in astrology when there is not one drop of truth. I think it erroneous to base a life decision on some fanatsy like that. People give their power away all too easily. A better example that hits home to everyone here is the dreaded War on Drugs. If the prohibtionists really examined the facts instead of swallowing everything that they were spoon-fed, prohibition would be impossible. The clear light of reason would make it so. Wouldn't that be wonderful? Or maybe through your searching, you drive too hard that you miss the beauty of the experiences people share here. Perhaps I will get ambitious and post some of my nature photos or some of my music. Then you can tell me how much beauty I miss. My attitude hardly precludes the appreciation of nature. That is an amazingly (to me) illogical leap that you make there. We cannot objectified a human being as a lab rat in search of unequivocal truth in the name of science. Many of the magical claims made here should stand up to examination without dissolution, but seems they cannot. Anyone who drives to such epistemological extreme is suspect of deeper internal issues.. Please don't play junior pyschologist with me. Without being arrogant, I can say that I am probably one of the more balanced psyches here. I have the strength and energy of a young man (took 1 st place last year at SDSU in racquetball against 20 year olds), can talk about most any subject as I am extremely well-read, have great relationships, live in a beautiful area, express myself well verbally, artisitically and socially (yes, sometimes I am harsh here, but am truely caring and different in person) and many other fields, etc. I exhibit little sign of pathology... -------------------- The proof is in the pudding. Edited by Swami (01/29/02 09:26 AM)
| |||||||
CosmicJoke happy mutant  Registered: 04/05/00 Posts: 10,848 Loc: Portland, OR |
| ||||||
|
gribocheck: go check out Other Drugs: 'best MHRB prep' and look at the tango Swami and I got into but not one second ago before i coincidentally hopped to this thread, very interesting indeed.
It's one thing to get involved with the sangha/satsang and it's another to alienate yourself. In our posts are we really doing anything but turning other people off and inflating our own egos?.... are any of us the board's "teacher"? - I say no, none of us are. In relating with others. If I could make a suggestion..... could we post in a way that would "work with others?" I.e., rather than having answers for people, wouldn't it help if our words became grist for the mill (were work on our own spiritual self?). Our mode of communcitating with people is not relating to them (in most of our posts). We are alienating ourselves. Everyone (including myself) wants to use the board to keep a 'connection' and feel liked and respected. We want to express ourselves freely. A good example is the responses that you see from gnrm23 - he is well educated, but he doesn't come across with long dissertations or get "heavy" in his language. He keeps it simple. Using him as an example, you can see that what he writes is from the heart, is direct, and has it's depth in just a few words. Whether 'you' think it is right or dharmic to "answer" peoples questions in believing that it will "force them to deal with whatever," is not a way of helping people. We would be most successful in listening and empathizing and then reply in a kind way, and my "peace/cj" ain't gonna cut it if i've done otherwise, for example Can't we speak to each other mostly with your heart and not our heads (i like understanding big, complicated systems, but shit - outright critisism doesn't help anyone and i imagine some people must be afraid of posting with fuckers like us. By assuming these people are "not ready" in some sort of way due to being afraid of an answer is wayyyyyyy out of tune of what this satsang (all of us) is all about. i think with spirituality we keep it simple... and that doesn't mean as in "simpleton-minds" on the board, it means in the heart. where it goes from within there is our freedom. -------------------- Everything is better than it was the last time. I'm good. If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care. It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence. I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too. If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
gribocheck: go check out Other Drugs: 'best MHRB prep' and look at the tango Swami and I got into but not one second ago before i coincidentally hopped to this thread, very interesting indeed.
Yes, please do. CJ states flatly that my stance against the ayahuasca purge is responsible for the destruction of the rain forest. OK, whatever... It's one thing to get involved with the sangha/satsang and it's another to alienate yourself. Perhaps, like you, I should use the word "fuck" more often in my replies to display my emotional maturity... In relating with others. If I could make a suggestion..... could we post in a way that would "work with others?"... Can't we speak to each other mostly with your heart ... I suggest someone should try a hydrochloric extraction and you go off on some tangent while making it highly personal, then come here and say "Why can't we all just get along?" Try setting an example before getting on the pulpit. Namaste. -------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
gribochek enthusiast Registered: 04/18/99 Posts: 286 Last seen: 19 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
When one sees a ritual sword fight it is somewhat strange to then go up to the fighting parties and tell them to resolve their differences peacefully.
gnrm is a true guru-of-the-board, I can not even hope to be like him. Thanks for the reality check, tho. -- Grib
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
I apologize for get sucked in *the swamiji hangs head in shame*.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
gribochek enthusiast Registered: 04/18/99 Posts: 286 Last seen: 19 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
Are you putting your sword down, Swamiji-san? And to think that now you, your children and your grandchildren alike must commit ritual suicide...
As for the rainforest, I think he is shooting too low. My personal favourite blame I would pin on you is 7 million children drugged by ritalin and prozac from age 4. -- Grib.
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
I had a moment of weakness where I bowed to peer pressure to put relationships before truth and honor. I just can't do it!
*Picks up sword* Go ahead - blame away. I can take it; and certainly can dish it out. *Raises head with Dignity* The Swam is back! One cannot deny their true nature. That is the lesson that I have learned today. Thanks for that cold slap in the face, Grib, -------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
Swami Eggshell Walker Registered: 01/18/00 Posts: 15,413 Loc: In the hen house |
| ||||||
|
...7 million children drugged by ritalin and prozac from age 4.
Ah, yes - the Partnership for a Drug-Free America... too much! -------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
| |||||||
|
greenpin wierdo Registered: 11/22/01 Posts: 13 Loc: FL, USA Last seen: 20 years, 3 months |
| ||||||
|
From reading all of this. I constantly wonder how people get the way they are. But really, what is the point of having a question like that?
Why would it even matter if you got an answer to a open ended question like that. -------------------- -stoly
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Buy Kratom Extract Buy Bali Kratom Powder Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Red Vein Kratom Cultivation Supplies |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Do we place too much trust in scientists and doctors? (  1 2 3 all ) |
 SneezingPenis |
4,449 | 49 | 07/28/06 12:54 PM by tallgreen |
|
|
I want to debate a "creation scientist". ( 1 2 3 4 ... 11 12 all ) |
 Phluck |
16,370 | 232 | 12/01/04 04:26 PM by Diploid |
|
 |
Why did "real" miracles only happen long ago? ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 Swami |
7,042 | 77 | 08/30/04 08:54 AM by silversoul7 |
|
 |
blind leaders of the blind |  soulmotion |
831 | 13 | 02/08/05 10:00 PM by Frog |
|
|
shroom induced miracles? ( 1 2 3 4 5 all ) |
 YouInfoIt |
6,031 | 81 | 01/24/02 09:53 PM by Swami |
|
|
Saint's Dried Blood Liquefies in 'Miracle' | Anonymous |
681 | 1 | 09/20/02 09:37 PM by Swami |
|
|
Miracle of Life |  mikebart101 |
1,732 | 17 | 01/26/07 09:57 PM by fireworks_god |
|
 |
Scientist's Research Debunked |  LunarEclipse |
2,260 | 18 | 12/31/05 03:03 PM by MushmanTheManic |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 4,675 topic views. 0 members, 3 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||
