Random Dharma

Just looked up some Matrix quotes for some reason

Agent Smith: You're empty.
Neo: So are you.

30 seconds

OMG

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/...d-or-meditating.html

I'm laughing so hard.

Ona Kiser wrote: OMG

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/...d-or-meditating.html

I'm laughing so hard.

Pining for the fjords, he is.

I love the rationalization: He's used to meditating in the Himalayas, so why not stick him in the freezer?

Ona Kiser wrote: I love the rationalization: He's used to meditating in the Himalayas, so why not stick him in the freezer?

Just be mindful if you're reaching into the freezer for some frozen drumsticks!

An interesting discussion on DhO between those who don't know what they're talking about and those who do: www.dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discu...540979#_19_message_0

I just contributed to the thread referenced above, and realized as I did that in making the above comment, I was creating a dichotomy between those who know and those who don't. The OP knows perfectly well how things seem to him, and that is his insight. And my insight today is that such dualities bring suffering.

www.wired.com/2011/04/should-we-buy-expensive-wine/

Kinda interesting, if only to emphasize how expectation and subjectivity influence perception.

a piece of the article, quote:

But I think the subjectivity of wine is a great opportunity. Consider this study by neuroeconomists at Caltech, which I describe in How We Decide:
Their experiment was organized like a wine tasting. Twenty people sampled five Cabernet Sauvignons that were distinguished solely by their retail price, with bottles ranging from $5 to $90. Although the people were told that all five wines were different, the scientists weren’t telling the truth: there were only three different wines. This meant that the same wines would often reappear, but with different price labels. For example, the first wine offered during the tasting – it was a cheap bottle of Californian Cabernet – was labeled both as a $5 wine (it’s actual retail price) and as a $45 dollar wine, a 900 percent markup. All of the red wines were sipped inside an fMRI machine.

Not surprisingly, the subjects consistently reported that the more expensive wines tasted better. They preferred the $90 bottle to the $10 bottle, and thought the $45 Cabernet was far superior to the $5 plonk. By conducting the wine tasting inside an fMRI machine – the drinks were sipped via a network of plastic tubes – the scientists could see how the brains of the subjects responded to the different wines. While a variety of brain regions were activated during the experiment, only one brain region seemed to respond to the price of the wine, rather than the wine itself: the orbitofrontal cortex. In general, more expensive wines made this part of the prefrontal cortex more excited. The scientists argue that the activity of this brain region shifted the preferences of the wine tasters, so that the $90 Cabernet seemed to taste better than the $35 Cabernet, even though they were actually the same wine.

You see what happened there? Even though their assumption about wine was false – the more expensive Cabernet didn’t taste better – that assumption still led to increased pleasure, both as measured in terms of self-reported preference and as a function of brain activity. Sure, that pleasure is a figment of our blinkered imagination, but what part of pleasure isn’t an imaginary figment?

end quote

Just thinking about it, if I drank a wine I knew had a large price ticket, there'd be more anticipation, like "What's that all about" as I sipped the wine. That can be neat, maybe you can call curiosity a pleasure in and of itself

Higgs Boson Seems To Prove That The Universe Doesn't Exist

My teacher Ming posts astrological auspices on his FaceBook page regularly; I thought this one (for tomorrow) might ring some bells...

"Sun June 29 – 6th moon/3rd day WATCHERS/Divide
Today the qi is found in self-destruction – but – self-destruction in a good way. The day kicks the ego in the teeth and offers a chance to fully awaken or, at least, recalibrate your qi. The image is the whirling dance of the shaman, the tonsure of a monk or the effective use of loss along the spiritual Path. In Chan we say: “Put it down! – Put it ALL down!” The auspices of the day measure your attachments. Let go or suffer. Consult the oracle (your children, peers or mentors) if you are frightened. The day supports entering retreat, temple offerings, self-reflection, medical treatments and discarding old habits. Cut your hair, clean your closet, eliminate clutter and subordinate. Remember everyone is caught up in this whirlwind, so be forgiving if those around you are being flushed down the toilet. LOL Embracing change, and the overwhelm/fear it will bring today, will have great result in the long run.

Avoid digging the ground (foundations, wells). Know that arguing or struggling will unveil a storm of controversy and criticism."

Am reading a brilliant book about Chinese medicine theory, The Spark in the Machine, by Dr. Daniel Keown.

His portal to bringing Western and Eastern descriptions of physiology and pathology together is embryology-- not something that would have occurred to me, but it works so well! One of the thing that attracts me to the study of Asian medical theory is that it treats living beings as wholes, not just an assemblage of mechanical parts and chemical constituents. As such, unexpected "spiritual" insights get uncovered, like this one, which strikes me as A BIG CLUE:

"At some point in development as the embryo gets bigger another 'Organizational Center' will have to arise because another, different, change will be needed. In fact, the body is a seething mass of organizing centers all cooperating and competing with each other for control of the cells of the body through morphogens.

In the early stages this process will involve simple diffusion, morphogens moving between cells. As the body gets more complex it creates compartments, which are lined by membranes-- fascia. Those cells within the compartment will have a shared purpose, whether it is being bone, moving the bone (muscles and tendons) or regulating the bone (kidney). Morphogens acting on the cells within a compartment will have to tell the different cells within the compartment what they should be doing. However, a different message will be needed between these compartments to ensure that they don't grow into each other.

Sometimes what triggers the change in cells isn't even a substance: it can be tension, pressure or even the shape into which the cell is growing.

The morphogen theory not only works in theory, it works in practice; scientists use this to manipulate stem cells. It's a theory that beautifully explains how animal development occurs but still requires control of the organizing centers. In other words, there still needs to be a 'brain'-- a part of the embryo that regulates the organizing centers and the amount of morphogens released.

Except that there isn't! It's just as the title of Ted Kaptchuk's seminal work on Chinese medicine states: it is the 'Web That Has No Weaver'. There is no brain, no overall command center, no government headquarters. The cells just get on and do it."

(my emphasis)-- the analogy, for me, is we do this enquiry about the putative 'self' who we think must be operating awareness; and when we can't really find it, we say we've failed. Except that that is where the enquiry expressly leads-- to the brink of the awesome discovery that this astonishing reality, and awareness itself, are "self-arisen", they are the web with no weaver. As are these very bodies with their bright consciousness.

Yes, Chris-- the next chapter gets into fractals and the Mandelbrot set and the golden ratio as expressed in embryology. I really am having such a swell time reading this.

Electric shocks over thoughts

A full 67% of men who previously rated the shocks as unpleasant – so unpleasant that they would actually pay money to avoid them – still chose to zap themselves at least once during that period. (One man apparently shocked himself 190 times, and was treated as an outlier.)

But minds are difficult to control, they point out, and may be a challenge to keep steering them in positive directions. That could be why people seek out techniques like meditation, to rein in the unruly thoughts.

In addition to reflecting on this article from a meditation perspective, I am also pondering from a parenting perspective as well. A lot of this is humans being humans but I wonder how much is always having the TV, mobile phone, gaming device, etc, and not even indulging in daydream, fantasy, reflection, etc (never mind mindfulness). A shift in the last 100 years from free time in nature to constant entertainment with regards to child development and how that may relate to contentment and well being.

It seems to be part of the pattern of society for younger people to be very enamoured of novelty and overstimulation, while older people are rather horrified at the younger folks' lack of focus and apparent distractability.

I read a 4th century text in which an abbot said there was little hope of sanctification for the current generation, who were so soft and unable to cope with monastic life that unless they were coddled they would run home to their mothers. Not like the previous generations, who had joyfully undertaken rigorous ascetic practices. Or a 17th century text that warned parents to keep their children away from the theater, which was bawdy and tasteless, and to avoid letting their daughters date dandy boys with curls in their hair.

I suspect the phase of "love novelty and overstimulation" serves to encourage things like exploring new territory, enthusiasm for war and sports, inventing new technologies and so forth. The older generation provides a balancing force, which perhaps ideally prevents the former from creating a mess and tries to direct that energy into the sustaining of the community as a whole.

That said, where do people learn to participate in community, take on their share of responsibilities, etc if that is not taught? Perhaps it just shows up eventually. For all my father grew up in a traditional farming family, from the stories he told he spent a good part of each day at the swimming hole, shooting targets, or hanging out in town peeking under the flaps of the circus tent and things like that. Despite that, when we were teens he found our wayward tendencies horrifying and did his best to encourage responsibility, academic achievement, etc. We ignored him until we were of the age where that lesson finally makes sense. My sister and I used to mock my parents. Now we sound like them, horrified at kids these days.

The above, however, all seems like generalizations and thus as untrue as it is true.

northwestwoodworking.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/cobblers/

(a letter)

Hi, Gary!

May I give you a story, as promised?

The story is told that if you were a young person in medieval France embarking on a spiritual quest, if you were fortunate you might meet up with someone older, perhaps a teacher, who would say this to you: I think I understand what you are seeking. Let me give you the name of someone I know, a cobbler, in Dijon. I think that it might work out well if you were to become his apprentice. If that happens, let me give you one piece of advice. Don’t talk with him about spiritual matters; just let him teach you how to make shoes.

So, time passes, and you find yourself in Dijon, and you seek out the cobbler. Sure enough, as it works out, you become his apprentice.

Years pass, and you learn how to make shoes. Year after year, you measure people’s feet. You watch them walk. You listen as they tell you about their work, their daily activities, their lives, their yearnings. You make their shoes, you modify their shoes, you repair their shoes. Your shoes tell stories. You make wonderful shoes that enrich people’s lives.

More time passes, and one day, the cobbler says to you, You have become a fine cobbler. Your fingers listen to the leather, and your heart listens to the people who will wear your shoes. I am growing old, and soon I will reach the end of my life. I want to leave this shop in your hands.

You begin to protest, but the cobbler goes on.

Now hear me. One day, a young person will come to you, on some kind of spiritual quest. If it works out for this person to become your apprentice, let me give you one piece of advice. Don’t talk with him about spiritual matters. Just teach your apprentice how to make shoes.

Warmly, Herman F.

Which Early Christian Heresy Are You?

Definitely the funniest personality quiz I've ever taken. I particularly appreciated this question:

You wake up one morning to find yourself inside a lemon. What is your first course of action?

• Call your therapist.
• Contemplate the philosophical implications of your situation. At the end of the day, are we not all trapped inside lemons?
• Write a letter of complaint to your local congressman, member of parliament or feudal landlord.
• Begin a detailed topographical survey of the interior of the lemon.
• Start a blog describing your citrus residency experiences.
• Lay claim to the lemon as a colony of your home country.
• Go shopping for furniture and artwork to make the interior of the lemon more homelike and inviting.
• Attempt to sell pomegranates to the other inhabitants of the lemon.

Quite possibly the only such quiz I have ever bothered to take, and which was funny in itself and funnier still when I had no idea what the question meant or what the answers meant. (No, I don't actually have a favorite obscure Scandinavian symphonic composer.) More!

I find it very appropriate that my Christian heresy.... led to schism!!!!

You are Monophysitism!

Monophysitism (literally, "one-nature-ism") taught that Christ's human and divine natures were not distinct but dissolved together into a single hybrid nature; it is also known as "Eutychianism" after its most famous proponent, the fifth-century abbot Eutyches. Monophysite beliefs emerged as a reaction against the earlier heresy of Nestorian, which taught that Christ's divine and human natures remained wholly separate. Eutychian beliefs were condemned at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which embraced a dyophysite position: Christ's human and divine natures, while remaining distinct, formed an inseparable and indivisible union within a single person and substance (Greek: "hypostasis"). The Chalcedonian belief in a "hypostatic union" of Christ's two natures is shared by Catholic, Orthodox and most Protestant churches, representing a consensus position that denies the extremes of both Monophysite and Nestorian Christology.

Although Monophysite beliefs were officially condemned at Chalcedon, the Monophysite controversy led to a schism which separated the so-called Oriental Orthodox churches from the remainder of Christendom, including the modern-day Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac, Malankara Syrian, and Armenian churches. While these churches reject the authority of the council of Chalcedon, they deny that their doctrine is formally heretical in the sense taught by Eutyches, and often strongly object to the characterization of their beliefs as "monophysite."

shoot-- I was trying to take it, and I broke the internet; I may never know the answer. Quizmaker seems obsessed with pomegranates...