Well, the baptists are closing up their forum for good, and I’ve invited the gaggle of enlightened satanists to hang out here while Alan and Duncan prepare to set up a new forum ( under a new remit) elsewhere. They may or may not deign to squat here, but in any event, it can’t hurt to get some people talking again, so I figure I’ll drop an open thread to see who’s still hanging around. I’ve never actually done a roll call of my audience, so by all means just give a small peep if that’s all you’re inclined to do, but feel free to talk rubbish to your heart’s content.

Just to kick off, my insight practice seems to have reached something resembling a conclusion today. perhaps it was all the debate and contemplation of complex issues over on open enlightenment and the ‘head, or maybe it was the philosophy of mind and logic classes, or maybe it was just good karma and sheer stubbornness. In any case, it’s all done, or very close to it. as long as I stay fairly relaxed and don’t chase after it too hard, I have this perfect centerless awareness thing going on, which is pretty cool. Once I burn off some residual habit patterns of dualistic perception, the thing should settle in for good, and not a moment too soon. the bliss of selfless fundamental unity is kind of like that old joke about hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. it feels so good when you stop being ignorant.

It’s too bad my own lineage takes a slightly harder line on what constitutes enlightenment than Dharma Dan Ingram. By his standard, I would probably be an arahat now, or again, very close to it. But by the old theravada, pali canon, 10 hindrances way of thinking, I am merely a wretched once-returner until I fully extinguish lust, aversion, conceit, ignorance, restlessness and worry and attachment to the worlds of form and formlessness. But I have never complained over having further mountains to climb. That is what makes us human. To me full enlightenment has always been a three legged stool of insight, concentration and conduct. It would be opportunistic of me to throw that standard away at such a convenient moment.


44 thoughts on “The Eternal Mountain / Open Thread

  1. To be honest, if literally all that’s to be gained by Arahatship is the end of insight disease (as you might infer from a cursory reading of a selection of threads on Kenneth Folk’s site) then frankly, it all seems like a bit of a bust. I suppose one fundamental problem with that approach though, is creeping normalism–ie: that the increased clarity of perception is taken for a what has always been there anyway. Unless, you’ve somehow disembodied from the process of perception/knowing itself, that is.

    So, you’ve got this tension between the process being beneficial for the one undergoing it and being beneficial for the “outside world”. Hell, it’s no wonder the temporal A∴A∴ branches are known as hard-ass testing orders.

  2. It can be tempting to think that insight practice creates a problem and then ( if you’re lucky ) solves it. especially if you’re married to the ingram/folk model of dharma, but I see even they are moving away from this under pressure from the “actual freedom” mafia.

    I kind of straddle the road between magician/buddhist monk/philosphical platonist and the nice thing about platonism is that there is no difference between between the ultimate good, the ultimate beauty, and the ultimate truth. if it seems like they are still separate, that just means you have farther to go, and that has always been the way it seems to me.

  3. Bhodi svaha, Zac!

    Your attitude is a pleasant contrast to the doubt, angst and abject panic that I vividly recall experiencing at the same stage… Nice work!

  4. Glad to have a cue for finally being able to say a big heartfelt thanks for this site. Thanks Zac for pointing me to MTCTOTB and the Baptists.

    Same to Mr Ingram for writing that book and putting it online (even if it is in the process of being superseded, it’s still more than good enough for me as of now).

    Same for ‘Advanced magick for beginners’, (also I recently read the blood/urn/roses trilogy and it blew my mind, even if I had already read most of the blog entries as they came.)

    Still a very happy lurker in here and other places, unfortunately not much to add to the discussion. Thanks again to all. Keep up the good work!

  5. I retract that ‘even if it is in the process of being superseded’ part of my comment. I just read some AF stuff to see what the hubbub was all about, and I think I’ll be deaf for a few days from the alarm bells.

    So, maybe they have something valid to offer, but I’ll pass or I’ll get it from somewhere else, thankyouverymuch.

  6. Thanks for the invitation to the BHers, Zac. Great blog, most excellent blog tiitle if I might add – I’m feeling quite alchemically braindamaged myself at the moment. πŸ™‚

    And blessings on your unfolding path.

  7. I’ll just drop by quickly as well; I’ve been around constantly, though one could say that I’ve been less than conscientious when it comes to making that fact evident. Lethargic Teenager Meets Dark Night Cycle Syndrome, one might say. Perhaps I should get back to my somewhat cathartic and silly attempts at writing, too, but it’ll have to wait until after my trip to London the upcoming weekend.

    It’s been – and still is – a pleasure.

  8. If I hadn’t stumbled upon this site a few years ago I might never have become interested in magick/mysticism, and what a miss that would have been, thanks and keep up the great work!

  9. Sweet Zac! After reading Hakim Bey, I’ve always wanted to be a squatter! Thanks for the hospitality. I’ll be the goateed gentleman spewing rubbish. πŸ™‚ I not always keen on the advanced topics on OE (congrats on your recent progress BTW!), but I enjoy the inspiration & comradery I’ve found there & @ the BH.

    Oh, you want to hear about meself, do you? πŸ˜‰ I like bodies of water, Ra Hoor, Futurama, sorcery, synchronicities, & crackin’ wise!

    Thanks again for the hospitality, & I can’t wait to go back and listen to some of your older material. I’m sure to find some goodies! -S.S.

  10. @duncan I have often felt that enlightenment is the biggest obstacle to enlightenment. if people quit thinking so much about getting somewhere and just developed greater compassion, clarity, concentration etc the thing would take care of itself. I have never seen anyone argue that you can ever finish developing clarity.

    @sam yes, the alarm bell went off for me on the AF thing too. increasingly it seems like there is no there there. I wrote several long posts about it on the ‘head forums and experimented a bit with it. I have kind of circled back to my original conclusion: it is a really visceral concentration state that acts on the brain stem and amygdala. on the plus side, the hysteria has encouraged people to be more bold about what can be accomplished and talked about in terms of acceptable enlightenment discourse. so net effect is all to the good, I think. those who wander down a dead end, probably always would have, anyway.

    @SS Squat away. I welcome fans of Hakim Bey, as long as you don’t turn out to be a pedophile, too. lol. I was a big fan of his writing and still appreciate some aspects of it. but I just can’t help noticing the unsavory undercurrent now. A distant acquaintance of mine wrote an article about it:


  11. @ zac: lol, no, I like boobies, big ones! πŸ™‚ It is a shame Bey had to excuse pedophilia in his prose like it’s some artistic freedom bullshit. Quite unsavory. That was a cool article, thx.

  12. Hey Zac! First of all, thanks for the Augoeides series. I’ve read the anonymous transcript a couple months ago and it was a crucial punch into my stomach. It lead me into developing a spell to organize myself and my life, and this resulted in a far stable regimen of meditation (which probably also resulted in smoother crossing of the abyss).
    Jumping into the discussion about Bey: I’ve always thought regarding Bey’s pedophilia that it’s a complex business. Of course I don’t approve people violating children around like that, and I know by first hand accounts how confusing and painful that can be. If we take our moral standards regarding author’s behaviors to the end, we would have to drop most of greek philosophy too. I’m serious – is all sexuality involving children/adults or children/teenagers violent? The staggering majority is, I’m counscious of that, and by no means I’m complacent with that. But still – it’s inherently violent? I know by my own experience that children are also sexual beings, and I think that the moral panic concerning pedophilia isn’t only composed of compassion of the children’s suffering – it’s also revulsion of children’s sexuality. And the anthropologist in me can’t stop wondering about how it is in other cultural contexts. As far as I know, Bey is drawing upon a middle-eastern cultural trait, very similar to the greek man-boy relationship. Of course he can be drawing upon this solely as a justification to violence, but I can’t swallow the hasty reasoning (and mostly panic-driven) that this is the only possibility. Also, I think it’s healthy to differentiate children from teenagers – by what I’ve been reading, the witch hunt on USA is going so far that’s criminalizing teenage couples that send erotic photos one to another. This is not anymore about violence, it’s about pure and simple cultural conservatism. Obviously, an adult-teenager relation can still be violent, and I bet many are, but I had a 15 years old girlfriend when I was 19, and I can assure everyone that it was pleasurable to both, and there was no violence involved. My current girlfriend dated a guy on his later 20s when she was a teenager, too. Without any violence being involved, psychological or otherwise.
    I still think this is tangential to Bey’s writing. Ok, how could one stop people from violating children in a TAZ? No state means no accountability, and this isn’t just for TAZ, this is a problem for the whole anarchistic thinking, including social anarchy. And it’s not only a problem just for children sexual violence – it’s a problem with ALL sorts of violence. I still think that it’s narrow to discuss accountability just into the state. I think that when an active community is functioning, it may be better suited to deal with this sort of problem than the state is. Specially if we’re to approach the fine distinction I believe must be done – between sexual violence and simply sexuality. I know, from the point of view of the state, only sane adults are rational beings capable of forming consensus – but this is so? This line of reasoning is a construct of the state and a very problematic one – it fails every time the lines gets blurred (addicts, psychotics, children). It’s why we the state still need (and probably will ever need) some degree of community – the nuclear family, nowadays – to be able to deal with these marginal situations. Swallowing that “only adults are rational, free beings” is swallowing the state discourse, and I think we can profit if we try to think outside this box.
    May none of this serve as an excuse for violence! – this accusation falls over anyone who tries to question complex stuff like that.

  13. ps.: I’m also not interested in having sexual relations with children, nor even teenagers – by my own experience, woman of my age (mid 20s) and higher provide the most fullfilling relationships. But when I was a teenager, I was very interested in pornography involving teenagers the same age as me, which makes me, if not a criminal, at least an abominable creep πŸ™‚

  14. well I’m not suggesting we dump the philosophy. only that we recognize the philosophy as being a thinly veiled argument for the freedom to prey upon children with impunity. It’s one of those ‘intent of the author’ vs ‘there is only the text’ literary interpretation things. YMMV. On another note, I just can’t help feeling slightly revolted now, reading his stuff, just because I can see so much more clearly what he must have been thinking as wrote it. So while I can still appreciate the ideas, it’s kind of the same feeling I get reading julius evola or charlie manson.

    The core idea seems to me, that older and more complex minds have the responsibility not to take advantage of younger and less complex minds for their own purposes. I can and do generalize that out into many areas of my own life. You have to recognize that levels of development exist, and that exploiting a superior level of development for self-gratification seems like the most anti-spiritual thing you can possibly do.

  15. Very interesting, PP & Zac. Children CAN think for themselves but have less read world experience. The middle-easter & greek cultural thing is facinating & maybe that’s where he’s coming from or maybe it’s just an excuse. I honestly do not know. At first I thought his use of the boy with swamp scum on his thighs was a metaphor for ultimate freedom, or a way to shock & disgust the middle-class type of thing. But it shows up again & again. & it’s never about little girls. So it seems, to me, he has an agenda (his writings for MAMBLA, etc) that, IMO, muddles the cause of the TAZ. “I don’t want THAT in my autonamous zone” paradox (paradox might not the right word, sorry linguists, maybe irony, or hilariousness. I digress.). Any type of relationship could be justified by the experience, I suppose. But I don’t think alot of people can think straight because they don’t know they are asleep. But heck, I guess some of the enlightened can’t take care of themselves either! I never thought about Bey using violence, just a weird old man, going “hehe little boy, let me show you what freedom is all about”, who writes awesome prose.

    I agree about the, no accountability in anarchy, point you made. I saw an Alan Moore vid where he described anarchy as the ultimate romantic idea for society. It seems to me that Zenarchy is the only way to go! – http://www.impropaganda.net/1997/zenarchy.html – It posits the abolition of the state after universal enlightenment, or at that point nobody will give a damn!

    thx, S.S.

  16. The abuse usually lies in the disparity of power. Taking advantage of the less powerful (whether by age, intellect or social standing). Two teens of equal social standing is not usually a taking advantage, though it can be if one is needy and timid and the other domineering. That said the lines we draw are very cultural – the lines at which a child has adult responsibilities can range from very young in some traditional cultures (puberty often) to arbitrary ages like 18, 21 for military service or the right to drink alcohol or drive a car (or text nude pictures to your friends!) in many contemporary societies. The guru, teacher or priest should be more aware than most of his/her position of power and spiritual obligations to students/followers/acolytes and aware of his/her own tendencies to lust for power, self-gratification, etc.

  17. The “exploiting” and “taking advantage” is for me the crux of the question. I think the disparity of power is more general framework for thinking abuse than levels of development (that, in the case of children abuse, seems to be one of the main reasons that causes a disparity of power). I agree also that sexuality and power go hand by hand on most situations, and this probably applies to the greek man-boy love aswell. So it leaves me thinking, what is Bey’s position regarding power? Classically, anarchism/libertarianism is all about fighting the disparity of power, and the abuse that springs from this disparity. Not only regarding state power, but also gender power disparity as in patriarchy, familiar and academic power over children as in authoritary education, economic power over proletariat as in class opression, etc. If Bey crosses the line somewhere and start endorsing abuse of power, he in my opinion leaves anarchy behind. This or else he is talking about pedophily without power abuse – can it happen? I remember a group of zoophiles claiming a distinction between interracial abuse and interracial love. I’m pretty sure animal sexuality can extend to humans (I’ve had a couple dogs fucking my legs, without my consent :), and can probably be pleasurable to them, despite disparity of complexity. Animals will not develop complex psychological issues from relating sexually and ‘consensually’ with humans, sure. But neither would children in a reichian utopy, would them? But we can drop this discussion if you like – it’s just wild speculation. At least your invitation specifically allows for talking rubbish (:

  18. Poor Zac invites us in and we go off on strange tangents in five minutes. πŸ™‚

    To offer an unrelated subject, anyone know about the symbolic meaning of crocodiles?

  19. Oh ok, sorry, didn’t know. “but I’m relevant!” haha… likely… πŸ™‚ Zenarchy is worth it thou!

    I’m assuming, Ona, you’re talking about in dreams?? Crocs?… hmmm, interesting. “Mama says crocodiles are so ornery because they got all them teeth and no toothbrush.” Are the actual things (crocs, playgrounds, flying, etc) applicable symbols to all humans or are the things themselves representative of personal matters? I’m not keen on Jung or others. But, I’m pretty sure I had a dream about my “shadow side” the other night, but I would not expect that same representation to be in everyones dreams about their “shadow side”. Hopefully someone smarter than me can answer, b/c I’d like to know.

    No links this time! πŸ™‚

  20. I don’t mind the Bey debate, especially since I introduced the point to begin with, so it’s not really a tangent.

    as far as crocodiles, they’re very ancient life forms, possibly symbolize the older responses in the reptilian brain stem. they definitely symbolize the threat of sudden death in certain parts of the world, if you’re not careful. the danger of still rivers and water holes. I think the egyptians had a crocodile headed god whose job it was to devour souls who were unworthy of paradise or some such.

  21. The crocodile also is featured on thoth tarot’s “The Fool”, refering to fertility and the natural principle, according to Hajo Banzhaf. Crowley mentions on the book of Thoth that the egyptians thought that the crocodile was unable to procreate, so it was a symbol of fertility – and he mentions that Freud explains the apparent antithesis. (?!)

    Anyway, I think Jung somehow nailed some “deep structures” of the uncouncious mind. By what I remember, the symbols that manifest are usually culturally conditioned, but there are general “complexes” resulting from building an ego. The complexes themselves are “microcosmic”, are the manifestation on the individual mind of these deep features, the “archetypes”. Well, thinking back, I’m not sure it’s really like this, a friend of mine explained it all to me a few years ago, and he was quite a pro into Jung, it all made a beautiful and simple system that made a lot of sense. I hope anyone can expand or correct me if I’m talking more nonsense.
    The complexes I can recall were the ego, the shadow (the uncouncious counterpart of self identification – “everything you repressed to build your beautiful little house”) the animus/anima (the necessary uncounscious counterpart of gender identification by the ego) and the mask (surface features of the ego, the souless “roles” we adopt to live socially). By what I remember the “Self” isn’t a complex, it’s an archetype, that functions as a center of balance to the psyche – when it’s too near to the uncouncious, you have an weak ego that can be easily overthrown by the chaotic forces below; if it’s centered on the mask, you’re a shallow representation. One point point of self-actualization is to center the Self in the ego, equlibrating both the mask and the uncouncious.

    Of course, this is all about content (meaning – the Self is the archetype of meaning, I remember Duncan saying it – he seems to know a lot about Jung, peraphs he could clarify here), not about form. So, in theory, self-actualization stands to enlightenment like Sila (ethics) stands to insight – it can help ALLOWING you to be able to meditate, it can help you navigate through the path AND, in the other hand, you can improve Sila and self-actualize by gaining insight, but having a nice balanced ego doesn’t makes you automatically enlightened. In theory. As a side note, I remember Zac talking something very similar on his Augoeides podcasts.

    Hope it helps!

  22. ps.: Well, reading back, I get the feeling that some of these complexes are indeed archetypes, and I’m mixing stuff up. There’s an intrincated relationship between these two animals, and I forgot all the fine details! (:

  23. pps.: also, when you’re dealing with magick or when magick is dealing with you, some symbols can pop into your life right from the uncounscious colective. It happened with me a few times, and it’s usually a very powerful ocorrence – visions and dreams and full on hallucinations, with or without entheogens being involved =P
    When archetypes pay a visit in my dreams (this isn’t something special of me, it happens to most people, I guess) it’s always important – sometimes painful, terrifying, sometimes very instructive. I got into tarot after dreaming with the Art card two or three times – not the literal card, but the act of trying to join fire and water. I was barely (altough not completely) councious of this connection the times I dreamt it – only later I would realize it’s full significance. The uncounscious is a intelligent fella.
    (anyway, after some experiences, I keep wondering that the HGA can use the Self archetype as means of manifestation).
    You can be also “possessed” by other archetypes, putting the self into the uncouncious. In Jungs opinion this would be the case of many gurus, peraphs of some inspired charismatic leaders, prophets, etc.

  24. Zac, thanks for starting the Bey convo by making sure I wasn’t a pedophile!

    With the archtypes: what’s the theory that every person has a certain archtype? True? Makes sense to me. How does this relate to, the Thelemic, True Will? About my shadow side dream, I hope this is of interest: I went into a room. Double doors, to another room, were locked with a chain. I cut the chain and looked inside a large room. This big monster, that was colored a black leathery, oily, plastic (very alien) substance, was just standing there looking into space. In my dream journal, I wrote that he either didn’t give a crap or was just an idiot. I looked up Jung dream archtypes that day and, shockingly, read that the shadow self was a primordial, nonintelligent, etc hiding of our self that we don’t want to, or won’t, recognize. Very scary but really, really cool at the same time. Symbolically, this dream could be made into a Jung infomercial, IMO!! Does anyone else keep a dream journal? I’ve found that after about a year+ of on & off regularity, & now constant regularity, I can tell the difference in “recycled”/integrating experience & actual, possible, meaning. I’ve even sensed my “ego” fighting back (scariest nightmare of my life) against my, feeble, attempts at non-attachment.

    thx for putting up w/ me, S.S.

  25. I’ve kept a dream journal in the past at times. I do think there are components of dreams which are just sort of a data processing montage of images and events from the day, and other elements that are expressions of the subconscious, and then potentially mystical elements. Outside of the more mystical stuff (which for me is not very common), I tend to use a sort of abstracting to interpret dreams. So if for example I dream about a red box, and I’m supposed to put these blue star shaped toys into it, but they are all the wrong shape and won’t fit, I don’t think about the symbolism of the colors or shapes or items, but on the overall feeling: “needing to accomplish something but I don’t have the right tools” or “trying to do something but it’s not working” and then see how that’s an expression of the frustration I felt at work yesterday trying to convince a colleague how to do something… etc.

    Your poor chained monster Sindder! Give him a hug or take him out for a walk next time! πŸ™‚

  26. “as long as I stay fairly relaxed and don’t chase after it too hard, I have this perfect centerless awareness thing going on, which is pretty cool.”
    Nice. Sounds almost familiar. Trying to do this stabilisation as well, but far away from experiencing like this 90% of the time. Will keep me busy a few more months I guess.

  27. I’ve been keeping a (irregular) dream diary over the past couple years. The main side effect is that you train your brain to remember dreams – my peak was 5 dreams in just one night! The less attention you give to your diary, the less attention to dreams – thus you recall fewer dreams. I’ve had times when I spent a whole month without recalling a single dream (well, some fragments here and there).
    I agree with Ona’s approach! It’s not about the symbols themselves, it’s more like a message being translated from an strange language and your unconscious is trying it’s best to convey the message clearly as possible, using whatever is available! It’s also like reading poetry – strange metaphors everywhere. One thing I found very interesting when deepening my relationship with the tarot was that my unconscious appropriated the symbols to convey his messages – interpretation got a lot easier, during a time.
    But sometimes (rarely) I have dreams that don’t fit into “self-actualization message” and “random day-by-day anxiety crap” – usually being part of a chain of synchronicity. These times I look up the significance of specific symbols – specially when they’re so out of context and logic that I can’t abstract anything from it!
    Dreams are fascinating! Anyone involved in a creative endeavour knows how hard is to consciously come up with wild ideas – while your unconscious vomit them in huge ammounts every night!

  28. the trick to walking absorption states is not to treat it as a separate focus while you’re doing something, but to make it integral to what you’re doing, like background music, or a ‘groove’ you get into, like sex or dancing or martial arts, or some repetitive physical activity. try to can feel it, and move through it, and with it, then it goes much more easily. instead of going ‘i will walk in the first jhana’ instead focus on what walking feels like when you’re already in the first jhana, and treat it as a different kind of walking.

  29. I have now been convinced that making comments in the middle of the night, local time, is not the best idea ever. Positive altered states or not. Thanks for cleaning up the mess, Zac.

    Anyway, my limited experience with Jhanas dictates much the same as what Zac suggests above. It tends to slip away swiftly if I go “Oh, I’m sooooo in a jhana right now – is this sensation related to it, is that sensation related to it?”. Whereas if I take a step back and allow it to proceed on its own, it strengthens and deepens. Attention without attempting to take mental intervention.

    The first few times – which are, incidentally, also the last few times – it was really hard to avoid pouncing on what I believed constituted the jhana-generated sensations in an attempt to pin them down and somehow separate them from the rest. But it gets easier with practice, I believe.

    Helpful? Useless? Delusional? Needing refinement?Other things worth mentioning? – My motivations for contributing aren’t just to help others, but also to learn for myself. I hope that’s not too selfish, but it’s true.

  30. Honestly I’ve probably been in and out of a variety of jhanas, given the variety of states I pass through during meditation, but have never seen a clear enough description of any of them to say “oh, that was second jhana “or whatever. Descriptions I have occasionally come across were vague and technical and made no sense, but perhaps I’m missing some really useful descriptions. Anyone have a handy reference for that?

  31. I guess probably the simplest way to think of jhana ( or any kind of absorption) is along an [ identification/dis-identification ] axis. insight is dis identifying from sensations, clearing up all the distortions and fuzziness and seeing them clearly as individual flickering things. concentration/absorption is about fully identifying with sensations, feeding them concentration, letting them get big, feel very solid and real and a part of you.

    pain and pleasure are good examples. when you feel pain or pleasure, they are YOUR pain or YOUR pleasure and you have to really work to dis-identify from them. the more you concentrate on them or pay attention to them, the bigger they seem, and the more real they seem, which is the opposite of what happens when you do insight and investigate them.

    paying attention to any kind of pleasant body feeling in this way and feeding it with concentration is sufficient for access and first jhana, I believe. eventually what happens is that the physical aspects of pleasure begin to be superseded by mental aspects of pleasant feeling, and that moves you into 2nd, 3rd and 4th, depending on how subtle you get in what you’re identifying with and how much you feed it. then the pleasant mental feelings begin to be superseded by perceptual qualities like expansiveness, emptiness, un-boundedness, nothingness and and so on. these are the four formless jhana.

    it’s really just a matter of feeding the pleasant aspects of your experience attention and letting them grow and grow into a bigger and more all-pervasive phenomena. but if you start to pull back from it and treat it as a thing that you’re looking it, it becomes a more insight based thing and that’s where a lot of people get tripped up.

  32. Ah. I see. And perhaps the skillfulness of it is in deliberately encouraging the state(s) as opposed to getting “lost” in them by accident, which would just be sidetracking yourself? In other words you are using them as a tool? Or am I missing the point?

  33. I always figured concentration was the tool, insight the perspective and morality the purpose.

    Anyways, that was a helpful response – I’ll be making use of it when next I get the chance.

  34. the skillfulness is that cultivating positive feeling states that don’t depend on external conditions helps you rise above the grosser forms of lust and ill will, and break the hold of emotions in general.

    it is still possible to be lost in jhana states, but it is a subtler form of hindrance than lust or ill will. attachment to the worlds of form ( access through 4th jhana, or sensory based concepts in general) and attachment to formless realms ( jhanas 4-8) are the 6th and 7th hindrances respectively while lust and ill will are 4th and 5th. this is assuming you’re using the old hindrance model in the first place, but I think the basic point still holds, whatever your model happens to be.

  35. When I first read the expression “attention wave”, spoken by Tarin at DhO, I don’t know why but “kundalini” came to my mind. I filed it into the “possible connections, lacking more data” mind-folder. Now Nikolai is talking at Kenneth’s place about the attention wave as the kundalini. As he warns, it’s everything very speculative: http://kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/4079122/Nikolai's+Practice+notes,+Phase+.2.?offset=140&maxResults=20
    See Nik’s posts 149, 151 and 152.
    These energy phenomena are so far the most remarkable “collateral effect” of my core pratice… First there would be “chakra signaling” at the solar plexus, then at heart, then at throath, then at third eye, and recently at the crown. By my own experience, the “physio-energetic” model is the one that fits best in my experience – I don’t know where I am at the jhanic arc nowadays, it may be equanimity or A&P – only time will tell for sure. But I’m assured that things are progressing on the right track by the “chakra signaling” shifts. This is making me very interested in understanding what is this “energy body” after all. And this reminds me of a Tarin’s quote: “the attention wave is stickyness in action”. What is the kundalini according to the source texts? I have only a shallow new-agey comprehension of it. Ok, the serpent, the DNA, gnostic Sophia, the life-force, Richard’s “instinctive passions”… there may be more.

  36. Coming back late to this, just wanted to add that in ancient Roma, there was only three sexual roles: dominant/dominated/neutral. No notion of homosexuality or anything, the dominant was on the giving end, the dominated on the receiving end, and that was it. Little children were considered neutral or more precisely, not mature enough for their behavior to be relevant in power games, and so were theoretically ‘free’ to engage in whatever sexuality they ‘wanted’. Hard to picture from our current cultural perspective.

    This is according to ‘Le sexe et l’effroi’ from Pascal Quignard.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s