The Good Clean Evangelical Christian Fun Factor & Crusader Burning Bush

[Pontifex Maximus]

Many self-referential recording
devices with forward autonomous
motion in time, i.e. space, transcend
politics effortlessly, while
disengenuous demagogues
deteriorate daily.

<<snippped>>

[<http://www.deathandhell.com/corpus/sex_magick/sadomak.html>]
"...Good Clean Evangelical Christian hypocrisy (uhhm 'values'),
outlines potential new esoteric world order aims thusly:
"To achieve altered states of consciousness repeatedly and reliably."
http://www.deathandhell.com/corpus/sex_magick/sadomak.html

*******************************************************************************

"It made us sick to our stomachs." --Dubya B. #43
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2004/05/07/national/a02050704_01.txt

*******************************************************************************

[Hisham Abd al-Razzaq] said that the so-called hooding
technique - whereby the detainee's head is covered with
a rancid-smelling sack for weeks or months - was always
"the first order of business."

"The hooding itself is not an interrogation method.
Its purpose is not to extract confessions from the
suspect, but rather to demoralise him and destroy
his mental balance"

Abd al-Razzaq said that the filthy sack that he
too was forced to wear was made up of three or
four layers to make sure that the suspect
"breathes the least possible amount of oxygen,
enough to keep him or her alive".

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C182D988-28E3-4D48-ADFC-F15D6509B0EC.htm

*******************************************************************************

The "Depth of Threat"
http://www.anti-anxietytouch.com/text/torture.html

We know that torture tends to increase with an increase in
the perceived depth of threat by a national government.
Dissociation theory tells us that "perception of threat"
includes a projective as well as an objective element.
During the Cold War, the U.S. felt threatened by the
Soviet system, and this perception of threat was integral
to the U.S. training of third-world security forces in
the methods of torture.

Yet, there is a curious paradox. The original blueprint
for the U.S. posture during the Cold War was drawn up by
the diplomat George Frost Kennan, who was an attaché at
the American embassy in Moscow in 1947. He coined the
term "containment" in a now-famous 8000-word message that
he sent to the Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal.
[...]
I would submit that the training of torturers is not one of
the "best traditions" Kennan was thinking about, and so we
find that this practice stemmed from the ambivalence of the
national psyche, not from its integral vision.
For pathological integral vision, we have to look to episodes
such as Nazi-ism, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Radavan Karadjic.

So, when as operatives in the field of torture we encounter
an increase in the perception of the depth of threat,
dissociation theory suggests that we can look for an
ambivalence in the national psyche and explore the possibility
of generating effective instruments of defense based on its
"best traditions" rather than on unconscious fears and anger.
It seems that this could apply very well to the present situations...
http://www.anti-anxietytouch.com/text/torture.html

*******************************************************************************

http://www.totse.com/en/politics/central_intelligence_agency/
1977 Senate Hearing on MKULTRA by U.S. Senate:
Perhaps most disturbing of all was the fact that the extent
of experimentation on human subjects was unknown. The records
of all these activities were destroyed in January 1973, at
the instruction of then CIA Director Richard Helms. In spite
of persistent inquiries by both the Health Subcommittee and
the Intelligence Committee, no additional records or
information were forthcoming. And no one -- no single
individual -- could be found who remembered the details,
not the Director of the CIA, who ordered the documents
destroyed, not the official responsible for the program,
nor any of his associates.
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/central_intelligence_agency/

*******************************************************************************

Etcetera... etcetera... etc...

Praise The Lord and Pass the Superior Fire Power!
Praise The Looord and Pass the Superior Fire Power!!
Praise The Looooord and Pass the Superior Fire Power!!!
Which Nobody Can Deny!!!!
Which Nobody Can Deny!!!!
Which Nobody Can Deny!!!!!!!!
So, Praise The Looooorrrd and Pass the Superior Fire Powerrr!!!
Which Nobody Can Deny!!!!!!!!

[Monkey FourSevenZeroOne]

Post by Pontifex Maximus

Many self-referential recording
devices with forward autonomous
motion in time, i.e. space, transcend
politics effortlessly, while
disengenuous demagogues
deteriorate daily.

<<snippped>>

"... WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." wrote:
Loading Image...

Post by Pontifex Maximus
[<http://www.deathandhell.com/corpus/sex_magick/sadomak.html>]
"...Good Clean Evangelical Christian hypocrisy (uhhm 'values'),
"To achieve altered states of consciousness repeatedly and reliably."
http://www.deathandhell.com/corpus/sex_magick/sadomak.html

Media Matters
http://mediamatters.org/

WASHINGTON, May 6 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Media Matters for America
has posted Rush Limbaugh's comments (May 4, 2004, Rush Limbaugh Show)
about the Abu Ghirad prison torture in Iraq.

In discussing the torture of Iraqi prisoners, Limbaugh claims the U.S.
Guards were "having a good time" and compares images of the torture to
Madonna and Britney Spears concerts.

"Rush Limbaugh's consistently extreme commentary has operated with
almost total impunity for far too long," Media Matters for America
President David Brock said today. "Media Matters for America now
has in place a system to monitor, analyze and correct conservative
misinformation in the media -- including Rush Limbaugh, one of
America's most influential political commentators."

"Limbaugh on torture of Iraqis: U.S. guards were 'having a
good time,' 'blow(ing) some steam off'," and more analyses
of conservative misinformation, can be found at the Media
Matters for America website: http://www.mediamatters.org.

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit,
progressive research and information center dedicated to
comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting
conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Media Matters
for America is the first organization to systematically
monitor the media for conservative misinformation -- every
day, in real time -- in 2004 and beyond.

For more information, log on to http://www.mediamatters.org

White House refuses to repudiate controversial Limbaugh remarks

Following recent reports that radio host Rush Limbaugh compared
the torture of Iraqi prisoners to a college fraternity prank and
said the American guards were simply "having a good time,
"White House press secretary Scott McClellan was asked by a
reporter about Limbaugh's comments -- and McClellan refused
to repudiate them ... http://mediamatters.org/items/200405070004

Friday May 7, 2004

Post by Pontifex Maximus
*******************************************************************************
"It made us sick to our stomachs." --Dubya B. #43
http://www.helenair.com/articles/2004/05/07/national/a02050704_01.txt
*******************************************************************************
[Hisham Abd al-Razzaq] said that the so-called hooding
technique - whereby the detainee's head is covered with
a rancid-smelling sack for weeks or months - was always
"the first order of business."
"The hooding itself is not an interrogation method.
Its purpose is not to extract confessions from the
suspect, but rather to demoralise him and destroy
his mental balance"
Abd al-Razzaq said that the filthy sack that he
too was forced to wear was made up of three or
four layers to make sure that the suspect
"breathes the least possible amount of oxygen,
enough to keep him or her alive".
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/C182D988-28E3-4D48-ADFC-F15D6509B0EC.htm
*******************************************************************************
The "Depth of Threat"
http://www.anti-anxietytouch.com/text/torture.html
We know that torture tends to increase with an increase in
the perceived depth of threat by a national government.
Dissociation theory tells us that "perception of threat"
includes a projective as well as an objective element.
During the Cold War, the U.S. felt threatened by the
Soviet system, and this perception of threat was integral
to the U.S. training of third-world security forces in
the methods of torture.
Yet, there is a curious paradox. The original blueprint
for the U.S. posture during the Cold War was drawn up by
the diplomat George Frost Kennan, who was an attaché at
the American embassy in Moscow in 1947. He coined the
term "containment" in a now-famous 8000-word message that
he sent to the Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal.
[...]
I would submit that the training of torturers is not one of
the "best traditions" Kennan was thinking about, and so we
find that this practice stemmed from the ambivalence of the
national psyche, not from its integral vision.
For pathological integral vision, we have to look to episodes
such as Nazi-ism, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Radavan Karadjic.
So, when as operatives in the field of torture we encounter
an increase in the perception of the depth of threat,
dissociation theory suggests that we can look for an
ambivalence in the national psyche and explore the possibility
of generating effective instruments of defense based on its
"best traditions" rather than on unconscious fears and anger.
It seems that this could apply very well to the present situations...
http://www.anti-anxietytouch.com/text/torture.html
*******************************************************************************
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/central_intelligence_agency/
Perhaps most disturbing of all was the fact that the extent
of experimentation on human subjects was unknown. The records
of all these activities were destroyed in January 1973, at
the instruction of then CIA Director Richard Helms. In spite
of persistent inquiries by both the Health Subcommittee and
the Intelligence Committee, no additional records or
information were forthcoming. And no one -- no single
individual -- could be found who remembered the details,
not the Director of the CIA, who ordered the documents
destroyed, not the official responsible for the program,
nor any of his associates.
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/central_intelligence_agency/
*******************************************************************************
Etcetera... etcetera... etc...
Praise The Lord and Pass the Superior Fire Power!

[vonroach]

Post by Monkey FourSevenZeroOne
In discussing the torture of Iraqi prisoners, Limbaugh claims the U.S.
Guards were "having a good time" and compares images of the torture to
Madonna and Britney Spears concerts.

Bad analogy, nobody has fun watching the wasted shells of spears and
madonna try to act like whores on stage.

Post by Monkey FourSevenZeroOne
"Rush Limbaugh's consistently extreme commentary has operated with
almost total impunity for far too long," Media Matters for America
President David Brock said today. "Media Matters for America now
has in place a system to monitor, analyze and correct conservative
misinformation in the media -- including Rush Limbaugh, one of
America's most influential political commentators."

David Brock? The same guy who wrote lies for the American Spectator.
ROFLMAO Brock works for the highest bidder (none bid very high); this
season he is a democrat shill. Who knows where he will wander next.

After seeing the pictures from Iraqi prisons, I want a reversal of the
`don't ask, don't tell' Clinton policy...I want to know exactly how
many of the guards were homosexual perverts.

[Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen]

Post by vonroach
...I want to know exactly how
many of the guards were homosexual perverts.

Uncle Tantra wrote elsewhere in message news:<***@mb-m29.aol.com>...

Newsgroups: alt.dreams.castaneda
Date: 08 May 2004 14:09:04 GMT
Subject: Performing For The Crowd
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BEGIN U.T. MSG:

Yet another rant. :-) This one posted to balance the others,
because I try my best to turn it positive at the end. It was
written for another Usenet forum, obviously, but might strike
some as relevant here, too. - Unc


Performing For The Crowd

Or, A Treatise On The Usenet, Inspired By Today's Doonesbury
And A Memory From A Few Years Back

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20040508

Isn't it fascinating, even on the "spiritual" newsgroups, how
perfectly nice people act perfectly horridly to their own friends?

Two people like each other in "real life." Rarely, they even
*know* each other in "real life." They get together over a beer
or a glass of wine or a cup of herbal tea and they have a good
old time. They have many things in common, including, in these
situations, being human.

But on the newsgroup they also have in common, there is a point
of contention on which they disagree. It could be politics; it could
be some esoteric point of religion or spirituality ("How many ass-
holes can dance on the head of a Shiva lingam?"); it could be a
personality conflict over different styles of presentation.

So how do these two otherwise nice human beings act towards
each other on the newsgroup when one of these differences of
opinion rears its ugly head?

They don't. They start acting for the crowd.

Both parties argue with each other, but they're not really talking
to each other. They're talking to the lurkers. They're posturing
for the crowd. And they don't even care that in the process of
doing so, they're treating another human being like less than a
human being, and demonstrating to anyone who has eyes to
see that they aren't one, either.

I've been as guilty of this as anyone else. More so, perhaps.
So I find it a phenomenon that I can readily identify with in
myself, not one that I have to project onto others and distance
myself from. And it's not just me, and not just the Usenet; it's
pretty much *everyone*. I have met very few people on the
planet who *don't* do this.

So what happens to cause this? What's the "hot button" that
causes someone to drop their natural humanity and start
acting for the crowd instead of from a sense of who and what
they really are?

In my opinion, it's two things. The "hot button" itself is attach-
ment, just as Buddha described it. When an individual makes
the fundamental mistake of assuming that he *is* his beliefs,
any attack on or criticism of those beliefs becomes a personal
attack. "The other person isn't just attacking my political stance
or my spiritual beliefs or my behavior; they're attacking *me*. I
have to attack back." The other factor is the very human desire
for "stroking," for being appreciated by other people and/or
praised or respected by them. So these perfectly nice people
"act out" for the crowd, with the often unconscious desire to be
"stroked" by the crowd, to be praised by them for standing up
for the right political belief or spiritual belief or way of acting.

And the crowd obliges by doing just that. They play "pile on the
victim" and start dashing off their *own* act-out-for-the-crowd
posts, agreeing with the person they agree with and helping him
or her trash the person they don't agree with or have a grudge
against. We see it every day, on this newsgroup and on most
others. We *participate* in it every day, on this newsgroup or
on others.

In my opinion both phenomena are based on two simple things.
Attachment to one's thoughts and beliefs, and lack of self
knowledge. That is, lack of knowledge of one's Self.

In the absence of a firm knowledge of who and what one really
is, one requires "feedback" from the world around to help them
shore up the illusory *image* of what one is. With such know-
ledge, the individual is free to tell the world and the crowd around
them to go suck eggs and equally free just do what they bloody
well please.

This came to mind today, strangely enough, because of a film
review. There is a new film starting in Paris next week called
"Travelers and Magicians." It's made by a guy named Khyentse
Norbu. You may have seen his previous film, "The Cup." If you
haven't, you've made a terrible mistake, and should remedy it
immediately.

Khyentse Norbu is not your everyday filmmaker. He's not your
everyday guy, either. He's a Tibetan lama, the head of a Buddhist
monastery in Bhutan. He's also a tulku, the recognized reincar-
nation of a famous 19th-century Tibetan saint. He worked on the
film set of "Khundun" and caught the film bug and started making
his own films, which are the work of a master, in more ways than
one. "The Cup" was one of the most universal, charming, funny,
and spiritually uplifting films I've ever seen. And it stood on its
own as a film, for people who have never cared a whit about either
spirituality or Tibet.

But that's not what got me thinking about "performing for the crowd."
It was the memory of meeting him a few years ago, at a benefit
showing of "The Cup" in Santa Fe. It was a fascinating experience
for me, one I will never forget.

Picture this red-robed young Tibetan monk, with a shaved head and
shoes that were so worn that one toe stuck out of them. Picture
him standing in a crowd of extremely wealthy Santa Feans (the cost
of the showing was $1000 per head, to raise money for the monas-
tery the film was shot in). Picture them coming up to him, one after
another after another, each and every one of them running some
number on him, trying to get his attention or his approval or whatever
it was they were trying to get. This went on for almost an hour, with
almost all of the people in the room doing their damnedest to get him
to respond to them *differently* than he responded to everyone else,
to give them some kind of "special" feedback or praise or attention.
Some of them went so far as to stand there right in front of him and
write out a big check, hoping he'd react in some way. Some railed
against the Chinese, again hoping he'd react.

Khyentse Norbu didn't react. Or, more precisely, he reacted *exactly*
the same to each and every person who came up to talk to him. He
smiled, was pleasant, and remained throughout *himself*. Not one
of the people had the slightest effect on him in any way. He felt no
need to pander to them, no need to perform for them, no need to do
*anything* other than be himself, and act the way he *always* does.

It was quite impressive.

*This* is what got me thinking about "performing for the crowd" today.
While it's an understandable phenomenon, it's essentally a very sad
one. But most people don't know there is an alternative. They've
never seen anyone act differently. Many of them don't even know
that it's *possible* to act differently.

I do. I got to see it in action. I know there is another option.

Now you do, too. Do with it what you will.

Unc

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -END U.T. MSG.

"Mostly when I come to Bhutan I'm supposed to play God,
which has been such a frustration for me for so many years.
What I crave, is the chance to climb down from my throne
and speak to ordinary people. I wish I could go with them
and talk with them, to a bar, a disco, dancing, whatever.
But I still don't have that courage to do it."
-- Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche (aka: Khyentse Norbu)
The Bitter and the Sweet of Temporary Things.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501030203-411452,00.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Dzongsar+Jamyang+Khyentse+Rinpoche%2C+Travelers+and+Magicians

[Monkey FourSevenZeroOne]

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen

Post by vonroach
...I want to know exactly how
many of the guards were homosexual perverts.

*****************************************************************
[] From: Jeremy Donovan <***@socal.spamming.rr.spammer.com>
[] Newsgroups: alt.dreams.castaneda
[] Subject: Re: Performing For The Crowd
[] Reply-To: Jeremy

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
I try my best to turn it positive at the end.

Remember Yoda.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
Performing For The Crowd

Let the performance begin.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
Or, A Treatise On The Usenet, Inspired By Today's Doonesbury
And A Memory From A Few Years Back
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20040508

The divisiveness isn't insane. It's natural to have that happen
whenever some kind of "extremism" is going down.

That's why Kerry, who people love to accuse of "flip flopping",
embodies the perfect antidote to the current situation: centrist
balance.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
Isn't it fascinating, even on the "spiritual" newsgroups, how perfectly
nice people act perfectly horridly to their own friends?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but sometimes friends even
act perfectly horribly to each other in person.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
But on the newsgroup they also have in common, there is a point
of contention on which they disagree.

And I say they should have it out, while stopping short of going
ballistic. Because that's how we hash out the issues and come to
terms with the most difficult aspects of a situation.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
It could be politics; it could
be some esoteric point of religion or spirituality ("How many ass-
holes can dance on the head of a Shiva lingam?");

So how is that point really any more "esoteric" than any of the other
common points of spiritual discussion? :-) LOL.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
it could be a
personality conflict over different styles of presentation.
So how do these two otherwise nice human beings act towards
each other on the newsgroup when one of these differences of
opinion rears its ugly head?
They don't. They start acting for the crowd.

Again, you honestly think this doesn't happen face to face, like at
parties and stuff. You ought to get out more??

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
Both parties argue with each other, but they're not really talking
to each other. They're talking to the lurkers. They're posturing
for the crowd. And they don't even care that in the process of
doing so, they're treating another human being like less than a
human being, and demonstrating to anyone who has eyes to
see that they aren't one, either.

Conclusion doesn't follow. That IS one common way in which human
beings act. And sometimes the drama is very entertaining.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
I've been as guilty of this as anyone else. More so, perhaps.

Perhaps you're guilty of it right now. Are you posturing a position
of "luke warm peace" and "holding one's tongue" perhaps in order to
appear a suitably pacifist Buddhist? Or not?

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
So I find it a phenomenon that I can readily identify with in
myself, not one that I have to project onto others and distance
myself from.

Oh, don't worry, you'll be back to yourself in no time, flaming the
heck outa me. :-)

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
And it's not just me, and not just the Usenet; it's
pretty much *everyone*. I have met very few people on the
planet who *don't* do this.

There we go. That wasn't so hard. What is questionable is your
insinuation that there is necessarily something wrong with it. There
can be, but you haven't fingered it yet.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
So what happens to cause this? What's the "hot button" that
causes someone to drop their natural humanity and start
acting for the crowd instead of from a sense of who and what
they really are?

What on earth makes you think that posturing dramatically for one's
position isn't a part of natural humanity, when you just noted that
everyone on earth does it?

Believe it or not, I think I can answer that question. What makes you
think it isn't natural is some religio/philosophical ideal/illusion.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
In my opinion, it's two things. The "hot button" itself is attach-
ment, just as Buddha described it.

Bingo. Was I right or was I right? :-)

Now my opinion on attachment. It is natural and GOOD to be "attached"
to one's perspective IF one is both passionate about a particular
issue AND truly well-informed and well-intentioned.

Unfortunately, it is also natural, and not so much good, to be heavily
attached to one's perspective if one is merely passionate, and NOT so
well-informed or well-intentioned.

The final case, being well-informed and not very passionate, well, the
danger there is simply that you end up accomplishing NOTHING, because
drama queens and "evil doers" just push you right out of the
spotlight.

So give me someone who has done their homework on a subject AND is
passionately *attached* to seeing a "decent outcome" regarding that
subject. That's what's effective. That's what gets the job done.
Fuck whatever is "spiritual" and "unattached".

The positive side of unattachment is being able to let something go
when there's nothing you can do about it, and beyond that, who needs
it.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
When an individual makes
the fundamental mistake of assuming that he *is* his beliefs,

Then the individual is merely guilty of a rather uninsightful
overgeneralization.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
any attack on or criticism of those beliefs becomes a personal
attack. "The other person isn't just attacking my political stance
or my spiritual beliefs or my behavior; they're attacking *me*. I
have to attack back." The other factor is the very human desire
for "stroking," for being appreciated by other people and/or
praised or respected by them. So these perfectly nice people
"act out" for the crowd, with the often unconscious desire to be
"stroked" by the crowd, to be praised by them for standing up
for the right political belief or spiritual belief or way of acting.
And the crowd obliges by doing just that. They play "pile on the
victim" and start dashing off their *own* act-out-for-the-crowd
posts, agreeing with the person they agree with

Agreeing with the person they agree with. How strange.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
and helping him
or her trash the person they don't agree with or have a grudge
against.

Trashing the person they don't agree with is the down side. Yup. I
think it's best to take that in moderation. And that is putting the
finger on the real problem with attachment: totally over the top
trashing or damaging anyone who doesn't agree with you.

Then again, let me ask you, if someone doesn't trash Bush, Cheney, and
Rummy, won't they just keep on fucking us?? So isn't it also
*necessary* to do a bit of that "trashing" as long as one doesn't lose
oneself in it or go totally over the top and make oneself look like an
idiot?? To answer my own question: yup. Also necessary, and also
natural.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
We see it every day, on this newsgroup and on most
others. We *participate* in it every day, on this newsgroup or
on others.
In my opinion both phenomena are based on two simple things.
Attachment to one's thoughts and beliefs, and lack of self
knowledge. That is, lack of knowledge of one's Self.

Oh boy... :( here we go... :-)

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
In the absence of a firm knowledge of who and what one really
is,

And what exactly would that be, Unc? Knowledge of genetics and
evolution? Knowledge of psychology? Knowledge of brain chemistry?
Knowledge of "the soul"? Knowledge of the unconscious? Knowledge of
one's place in the social, political realities in which one lives?
Knowledge of one's artistic capacity? What a person IS -- that's
something vast and multi-faceted, and one never really fully knows it,
because it is ever changing, and expanding.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
one requires "feedback" from the world around to help them
shore up the illusory *image* of what one is.

One also requires feedback from "the world" to get some realistic idea
of what one has really become (as opposed to one's own possibly
illusory idea of this). In other words, getting feedback from the
world is also very necessary, and natural.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
With such know-
ledge, the individual is free to tell the world and the crowd around
them to go suck eggs and equally free just do what they bloody
well please.

One is always free to do that, no matter what (um, depending on just
how far one goes with what is done). And should it ever be otherwise?

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
This came to mind today, strangely enough, because of a film
review. There is a new film starting in Paris next week called
"Travelers and Magicians." It's made by a guy named Khyentse
Norbu. You may have seen his previous film, "The Cup." If you
haven't, you've made a terrible mistake, and should remedy it
immediately.
Khyentse Norbu is not your everyday filmmaker. He's not your
everyday guy, either. He's a Tibetan lama, the head of a Buddhist
monastery in Bhutan. He's also a tulku, the recognized reincar-
nation of a famous 19th-century Tibetan saint.

Sorry, but I do not recognize him as such. :-)

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
He worked on the
film set of "Khundun" and caught the film bug and started making
his own films, which are the work of a master, in more ways than
one. "The Cup" was one of the most universal, charming, funny,
and spiritually uplifting films I've ever seen. And it stood on its
own as a film, for people who have never cared a whit about either
spirituality or Tibet.

I'll keep an eye out for it, and see if I agree.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
But that's not what got me thinking about "performing for the crowd."
It was the memory of meeting him a few years ago, at a benefit
showing of "The Cup" in Santa Fe. It was a fascinating experience
for me, one I will never forget.
Picture this red-robed young Tibetan monk, with a shaved head and
shoes that were so worn that one toe stuck out of them. Picture
him standing in a crowd of extremely wealthy Santa Feans (the cost
of the showing was $1000 per head, to raise money for the monas-
tery the film was shot in). Picture them coming up to him, one after
another after another, each and every one of them running some
number on him, trying to get his attention or his approval or whatever
it was they were trying to get. This went on for almost an hour, with
almost all of the people in the room doing their damnedest to get him
to respond to them *differently* than he responded to everyone else,
to give them some kind of "special" feedback or praise or attention.
Some of them went so far as to stand there right in front of him and
write out a big check, hoping he'd react in some way. Some railed
against the Chinese, again hoping he'd react.
Khyentse Norbu didn't react. Or, more precisely, he reacted *exactly*
the same to each and every person who came up to talk to him. He
smiled, was pleasant, and remained throughout *himself*. Not one
of the people had the slightest effect on him in any way. He felt no
need to pander to them, no need to perform for them, no need to do
*anything* other than be himself, and act the way he *always* does.
It was quite impressive.

Not to me. I don't see that he did a thing except "act spiritual",
And I consider that kind of an act to be about the easiest thing in
the world to pull off. And you wouldn't have known if he was really
"being himself", because you aren't him.

"Acting spiritual" can easily be just as much of a performance as
anything else, huh?

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
*This* is what got me thinking about "performing for the crowd" today.
While it's an understandable phenomenon, it's essentally a very sad
one. But most people don't know there is an alternative. They've
never seen anyone act differently. Many of them don't even know
that it's *possible* to act differently.

My alternative guru is Ringo Starr:

"And all I gotta do is act naturally."

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
I do. I got to see it in action. I know there is another option.
Now you do, too. Do with it what you will.

Nice performance Unc. :-)


You've given me a funny idea for a performance I'd like to do some
time. You know how people are always doing these funny little
sketches on how "you might be a redneck if..."?

I'd like to do one called:

You might be "spiritual" if...

LOL.


Now here's a joke about letting everything happen "naturally" where
joy, joy, an evil American also gets his:


An American tourist goes on a trip to China. While there, he is very
sexually promiscuous and doesn't use a condom at all the whole time.

A week after arriving back home in the States, he wakes one morning to
find his penis covered with bright green and purple spots.

Horrified, he immediately goes to see a doctor. The
doctor, never having seen anything like this before,
orders some tests and tells the man to return in two
days for the results.

The man returns a couple of days later and the doctor
says: "I've got bad news for you. You've contracted
Mongolian VD.

It's very rare and almost unheard of here. We know very little about
it." The man looks a little perplexed and says: "Well, give me a shot
or something and fix me up, doc".

The doctor answers: "I'm sorry, there's no known cure.
We're going to have to amputate your penis". The man
screams in horror, "Absolutely not! I want a second opinion".

The doctor replies: "Well, go ahead and get one if you want, but
surgery is your only choice".

The next day, the man seeks out a Chinese doctor,
figuring that he'll know more about the disease. The
Chinese doctor examines his penis and proclaims: "Ah,
yes, Mongolian VD. Vely lare disease".

The guy says to the doctor: "Yeah, yeah, I already know that, but what
can we do? My American doctor wants to operate and amputate my penis?"

The Chinese doctor shakes his head and laughs: "Stupid
Amelican docta, always want to cut, cut, cut. Make more money, that
way. No need to opelate!"

"Oh, Thank God!", the man replies. "Yes," says the Chinese doctor,
"You no worry! Save money. You wait two weeks. Dick fall off by
itself!"

***

So too, hopefully, in the end the bare, significant necessities of a
situation will eventually assert themselves over all the drama and
posturing, be it spiritual or otherwise, but both will always be a
natural and necessary part of the process.


-Jer

*****************************************************************

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
"Mostly when I come to Bhutan I'm supposed to play God,
which has been such a frustration for me for so many years.
What I crave, is the chance to climb down from my throne
and speak to ordinary people. I wish I could go with them
and talk with them, to a bar, a disco, dancing, whatever.
But I still don't have that courage to do it."
-- Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche (aka: Khyentse Norbu)
The Bitter and the Sweet of Temporary Things.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501030203-411452,00.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Dzongsar+Jamyang+Khyentse+Rinpoche%2C+Travelers+and+Magicians

[Pontifex Maximus]

Post by Pontifex Maximus

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen

Post by vonroach
...I want to know exactly how
many of the guards were homosexual perverts.

*****************************************************************
[] Newsgroups: alt.dreams.castaneda
[] Subject: Re: Performing For The Crowd
[] Reply-To: Jeremy

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
I try my best to turn it positive at the end.

Remember Yoda.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
Performing For The Crowd

Let the performance begin.

[...]

Post by Pontifex Maximus
"Oh, Thank God!", the man replies. "Yes," says the Chinese doctor,
"You no worry! Save money. You wait two weeks. Dick fall off by
itself!"
***
So too, hopefully, in the end the bare, significant necessities of a
situation will eventually assert themselves over all the drama and
posturing, be it spiritual or otherwise, but both will always be a
natural and necessary part of the process.
-Jer

THE MYSTIQUE OF ENLIGHTENMENT
Part One [Excerpt]
U.G. Krishnamurti
People call me an 'enlightened man' -- I detest that term -- they
can't find any other word to describe the way I am functioning.
At the same time, I point out that there is no such thing as
enlightenment at all. I say that because all my life I've searched
and wanted to be an enlightened man, and I discovered that there
is no such thing as enlightenment at all, and so the question
whether a particular person is enlightened or not doesn't arise.
I don't give a hoot for a sixth-century-BC Buddha, let alone all
the other claimants we have in our midst. They are a bunch of
exploiters, thriving on the gullibility of the people. There is
no power outside of man. Man has created God out of fear. So the
problem is fear and not God.
______________
I discovered for myself and by myself that there is no self to
realize -- that's the realization I am talking about. It comes
as a shattering blow. It hits you like a thunderbolt. You have
invested everything in one basket, self-realization, and, in
the end, suddenly you discover that there is no self to discover,
no self to realize -- and you say to yourself "What the hell have
I been doing all my life?!" That blasts you.
_______________
All kinds of things happened to me -- I went through that, you see.
The physical pain was unbearable -- that is why I say you really
don't want this. I wish I could give you a glimpse of it, a touch
of it -- then you wouldn't want to touch this at all. What you are
pursuing doesn't exist; it is a myth. You wouldn't want anything
to do with this.

UG: You see, I maintain that -- I don't know, whatever you call
this; I don't like to use the words 'enlightenment,' 'freedom,'
'moksha' or 'liberation'; all these words are loaded words, they
have a connotation of their own -- this cannot be brought about
through any effort of yours; it just happens. And why it happens
to one individual and not another, I don't know.

Questioner: So, it happened to you?

UG: It happened to me.

Q: When, Sir?

UG: In my forty-ninth year.
But whatever you do in the direction of whatever you are
after -- the pursuit or search for truth or reality -- takes
you away from your own very natural state, in which you always
are. It's not something you can acquire, attain or accomplish
as a result of your effort -- that is why I use the word 'acausal'.
It has no cause, but somehow the search come to an end.

Q: You think, Sir, that it is not the result of the search? I ask
because I have heard that you studied philosophy, that you were
associated with religious people ...

UG: You see, the search takes you away from yourself -- it is in
the opposite direction -- it has absolutely no relation.

Q: In spite of it, it has happened, not because of it?

UG: In spite of it -- yes, that's the word. All that you do makes
it impossible for what already is there to express itself. That is
why I call this 'your natural state'. You're always in that state.
What prevents what is there from expressing itself in its own way
is the search. The search is always in the wrong direction, so all
that you consider very profound, all that you consider sacred, is
a contamination in that consciousness. You may not (Laughs) like
the word 'contamination', but all that you consider sacred, holy
and profound is a contamination.
So, there's nothing that you can do. It's not in your hands.
I don't like to use the word 'grace', because if you use the
word 'grace', the grace of whom? You are not a specially chosen
individual; you deserve this, I don't know why.
If it were possible for me, I would be able to help somebody.
This is something which I can't give, because you have it.
Why should I give it to you? It is ridiculous to ask for a thing
which you already have.

Q: But I don't feel it, and you do.

UG: No, it is not a question of feeling it, it is not a question
of knowing it; you will never know. You have no way of knowing
that at all for yourself; it begins to express itself. There is
no conscious.... You see, I don't know how to put it. Never does
the thought that I am different from anybody come into my
consciousness. [...]
((({<snip>})))
Continued at: <http://www.well.com/user/jct/Mystique.htm>
Uppaluri Gopala Krishnamurti (Born 9 July 1918)

**************************************************

**************************************************

Free The Yezidi!

AL-JILWAH (The Revelation)

Yezidi Scripture

Before all creation, this revelation was with Melek Taus,
who sent Abd Taus to this world that he might separate
truth known to his particular people. This was done, first
of all, by means of oral tradition, and afterward by means
of this book, Al-Jilwah, which the outsiders may neither
read nor behold.

[CHAPTER I]

I was, am now, and shall have no end. I exercise dominion
over all creatures and over the affairs of all who are
under the protection of my image. I am ever present to help
all who trust in me and call upon me in time of need. There
is no place in the universe that knows not my presence.
I participate in all the affairs which those who are without
call evil because their nature is not such that they approve.
Every age has its own manager, who directs affairs according
to my decrees. This office is changeable from generation to
generation, that the ruler of this world and his chiefs may
discharge the duties of their respective offices, every one
in his own turn . I allow everyone to follow the dictates of
his own nature, but he that opposes me will regret it sorely.
No god has a right to interfere in my affairs, and I have
made it an imperative rule that everyone shall refrain from
worshiping all gods. All the books of those who are without
are altered by them, and they have declined from them,
although they were written by the prophets and the apostles.
That there are interpolations is seen in the fact that each
sect endeavors to prove that the others are wrong and to
destroy their books.

Truth and falsehood are known to me. When temptation comes,
I give my covenant to him that trusts in me. Moreover, I
give counsel to the skilled directors, for I have appointed
them for periods that are known to me. I remember necessary
affairs and execute them in due time. I teach and guide
those who follow my instruction. If anyone obey me and
conform to my commandments, he shall have joy, delight and
comfort.

[CHAPTER II]

I requite the descendants of Adam, and reward them with
various rewards that I alone know. Moreover, power and
dominion over all that is on earth, both that which is
above and that which is beneath, are in my hand. I do not
allow friendly association with other people, nor do I
deprive them that are my own and obey me of anything that
is good for them. I place my affairs in the hands of those
whom I have tried and who are in accord with my desires.
I appear in diverse manner to those who are faithful and
under my command. I give and take away; I enrich and
impoverish; I cause both happiness and misery. I do all
this in keeping with the characteristics of each epoch.
And none has a right to interfere with my management of
affairs. Those who oppose me I afflict with disease, but
my own shall not die like the sons of Adam that are without.
None shall live longer in this world than the time set by me
and if I so desire, I send a person a second or third time
in this world or into some other by the transfer of will.
[NOTE: Isya Joseph edition gives: by the transmigration
of souls.]

[CHAPTER III.]

I lead to the straight path without a revealed book; I direct
aright my beloved and my chosen ones by unseen means. All my
teachings are easily applicable to all times and all
conditions. Now the sons of Adam do not know the state of
things that is to come. For this reason they fall into many
errors. The beasts of the earth, the birds of the heaven, and
the fish of the sea are all under the control of my hands.
All treasure and hidden things are known to me, and as I
desire, I take them from one and bestow them on another.
I reveal my wonders to those who seek them, and in due time
my miracles to those who receive them from me . But those who
are without are my adversaries, hence they oppose me. Nor do
they know that such a course is against their own interests,
for might, wealth, and riches are in my hand, and I bestow
them upon every worthy descendant of Adam. Thus, the
government of the world, the transition of generations, and
the changes of their directors are determined by me from the
beginning.

[CHAPTER IV.]

I will not give my rights to other gods. I have allowed the
creation of four substances, four times, and four corners,
because they are necessary things for creatures. The books
of Jews, Christians, and Moslems, as those who are without,
accept in a sense, so far as they agree with and conform to,
my statutes. Whatsoever is contrary to these they have
altered; do not accept it. Three things are against me, and
I hate three things. But those who keep my secret shall
receive the fulfillment of my promises. It is my desire that
all my followers shall unite in a bond of unity, lest those
who are without prevail against them. Now, then, all ye who
have followed my commandments and my teachings, reject all
the teachings and sayings of such as are without. I have not
taught these teachings, nor do they proceed from me. O ye
that have believed in me, honor my symbol and my image, for
they remind you of me. Observe my laws and my statutes. Obey
my servants and listen to whatever they may dictate to you
of the hidden things. Do not mention my name nor my
attributes, lest ye regret it; for ye do not know what those
who are without may do.

[CHAPTER V.]

O ye that have believed in me, honor my symbol and my image,
for they remind you of me. Observe my laws and my statutes.
Obey my servants and listen to whatever they may dictate to
you of the hidden things. Receive that that is dictated, and
do not carry it before those who are without, Jews, Christians,
Moslems, and others; for they know not the nature of my
teaching. Do not give them your books, lest they alter them
without your knowledge. Learn by heart the greater part of
them, lest they be altered.

Thus endeth the book of Al-Jilwah.

**************************************************

**************************************************

"The number one killer in the world today is not cancer
or heart disease; it is repression. There is almost no
disease, mental or physical, without repression.
Repression is the hidden force behind illness".
-- A. Janov

"There is one neurosis -
many manifestations -
and one cure... feeling".

"Feeling pain is the end of suffering".

Post by Pontifex Maximus
*****************************************************************

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
"Mostly when I come to Bhutan I'm supposed to play God,
which has been such a frustration for me for so many years.
What I crave, is the chance to climb down from my throne
and speak to ordinary people. I wish I could go with them
and talk with them, to a bar, a disco, dancing, whatever.
But I still don't have that courage to do it."
-- Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche (aka: Khyentse Norbu)
The Bitter and the Sweet of Temporary Things.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501030203-411452,00.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Dzongsar+Jamyang+Khyentse+Rinpoche%2C+Travelers+and+Magicians

[Ann]

Hi Monkey (or Hi Jer:),

those cross-posts get complicated (to trace) at times, so I'll
concentrate on the sheer content (of "entertaining drama", cute medical
joke, though:). As a matter of fact, Uncle's 'non-acting' message was
rather simple, your "posturing a position" of 'radical' opposition
being more like an act of posing before the "lurkers" (and what about
this counter-reply of mine:).

I mean, what else (other than irrelevant acting) was this reminding of the
other ('real', "in person") side of the Internet coin, how important was
that Uncle 'failed' to generalise to all types of talk including "friends,
face to face and in person"?

Moreover :), wasn't his basic example--the personal experience/impression
from film maker Khyentse Norbu--enough "in person, face to face"? You see,
he was well aware of the generality of his message. Indeed, his essay
concentrated on Usenet discussions and why not, that's the medium we all
share now and perhaps that's where he can present (on demand:) documented
evidence to 'prove' his claim. I cannot see how the 'omission' of "face to
face" (from the title of his "Treatise on the Usenet":) could invalidate
or weaken his point. The following are pure examples of "performing for

Post by Monkey FourSevenZeroOne
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but sometimes
friends even act perfectly horribly to each other in person.
Again, you honestly think this doesn't happen face to face,
like at parties and stuff. You ought to get out more??
Jer

:) "I hate to be the one to break this to you, but" I guess this was
the sense in which Uncle spoke of "knowledge of one's Self". Of course,
and "again, he honestly thinks this does also happen face to face, like
at parties and stuff", that was what his meeting-in-person story
towards the middle of the "treatise" was all about--"face to face".
"You ought to get/read out more??". Do you have now a better idea of
the introvert "know thyself", of "what exactly that would be, Jer?"

If you ask me it is indeed "vast", though not so complex and
scientifically "multi-faceted": it's not about the extrovert "knowledge
of genetics and evolution", nor is it "knowledge of psychology"
outside, not even "knowledge of brain chemistry", go figure.

From my vantage point Uncle's call was for more honesty and less
acting, as easy as that; he wasn't telling you to stop being passionate
about compassionate medicine, humane science, political wrong-doings,
or economic and social injustices. But if you are - then be honest,
avoid performing with 'propaganda' cliches, speak from personal
experience, from the bottom of your heart.

On a practical level Uncle (the Tantric "methodman") told us to take off
our educated, 'bad' or 'good mannered' masks or if it was impossible
(e.g. to have a face without a social mask:) then wear the least 'costly'
one, say that of a Tibetan lama. Though, how can we measure the cost of a
mask and why should spiritual 'masks' of honesty be least costly?

As you might have guessed the answer won't rest on a rigorous mathematical
calculation but instead on a 'cost benefit analysis' based on intuition :)

Proof (of efficiency of the spiritual 'mask')

Axiom of Choice: we start with the premises that our goal is to live for
the 'now', to fully experience the present moment, free from obsessive
thoughts about past or future (usually useless memories, vain regrets and
sorrows for the past and blissful dreams for the future that never comes,
go figure:). {Note, in passing, how a goal like that (of stopping 'time')
is self-annihilating, it ceases to be such once it's achieved, there can
be no goal, plan or purpose without 'time' or 'future', without memory.}

The practical "methods" of achieving that 'instant' state of awareness
were discovered by self-observing Tibetan monks or other religious and
spiritual folks, the revelations came as a result of millennia of
'evolution' and "know thyself" type of 'research and development' (R&D).
It was found that to fully appreciate and perceive the 'now' the monk
needs "inner silence", inner calmness 'and' balanced composure (e.g. to
still the constant distractor--the egocentric internal dialogue:).

The next 'non-acting' finding was that this calm perception of the present
("heightened awareness":) could be reached the easiest (least costly:)
when we remove the social mask of Reason (benevolently imposed on us
during the 'innocent' years of education) - when we stop performing acts
to impress "the crowd". When we behave candidly remaining true to
oursouls, treating others with the same respect irrespective of whether
they are our favourite dog, the local beggar or guru, Castaneda or the
Nobel laureate, Dalai Lama or the president.

Any other strategy of 'acting' (assuming a role tailored for the
occasion:) traps our attention. That is, acting is more costly, it takes
more efforts ('energy') and can be sustained for considerably shorter
period of time (before we feel the pressing need to recharge our acting
batteries:). Such is for instance, the strategy of selectively
discriminating among people, of dividing them into separate groups of say
those who are important (like bosses, colleagues, presidents, gurus,
gods--scientific or other) and the unimportant rest -- those unworthy of
our attention (but worthy only of our "kill-file":).

Moreover and "unfortunately", "as you well know, appearances can be
deceiving", e.g. discriminative acting more often than not degrades to
making a pretence of: knowledge, passion, affection, friendship, respect,
altruism, sympathy, compassion, patriotism, bravery, humility,
repentance...

Living in pretence

O miserable mankind, to what fall degraded,
to what wretched state reserved! --Milton.

Anyway, the 'selective' behavioural strategy swiftly exhausts our
'resources' with its impressive 'energy' requirements: it demands our full
attention and thus disables us from focusing on the present, now. Even if
we're born actors (with impressive experience) our selective performance
will nevertheless consume the bulk of our soulful attention. Furthermore,
(since we all "know that appearances can be deceiving":) acts in pretence
are immediately recognised/felt by others as such, intuitively. Maybe even
subconsciously, yet each of us has this in-built 'lie detector' enabling
us to spot/discern the pretence of others. They are the mirror, we see
ourselves reflected in them, we recognise with ease the same toolkit of
behavioural acts/tricks we employ (or used to:).

Put differently, stalkers end up stalking themselves and not just the
"lurkers". "These are, Glaucon" the "dangers" of unintended
complications, the "unfortunate" consequences of the "entertaining drama"
("both passionate AND truly well-informed and well-intentioned":), "and
there are many others of a like kind":

"These are the objections, Glaucon, and there are many others of
a like kind, which I foresaw long ago; they made me afraid and
reluctant to take in hand any [Usenet or face to face] law about
the nurture of" acting in pretence of "natural divisiveness".

(from the fictional dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon
on "The equality of women", Plato's "Republic")

Best,
Ann
...

Post by Monkey FourSevenZeroOne
*****************************************************************
[] From: Jeremy Donovan
[] Newsgroups: alt.dreams.castaneda
[] Subject: Re: Performing For The Crowd

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
I try my best to turn it positive at the end.

Remember Yoda.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
Performing For The Crowd

Let the performance begin.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
Or, A Treatise On The Usenet, Inspired By Today's Doonesbury
And A Memory From A Few Years Back
http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/index.html?uc_full_date=20040508

The divisiveness isn't insane. It's natural to have that happen
whenever some kind of "extremism" is going down.
That's why Kerry, who people love to accuse of "flip flopping", embodies
the perfect antidote to the current situation: centrist balance.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
Isn't it fascinating, even on the "spiritual" newsgroups, how perfectly
nice people act perfectly horridly to their own friends?

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but sometimes friends even
act perfectly horribly to each other in person.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
But on the newsgroup they also have in common, there is a point of
contention on which they disagree.

And I say they should have it out, while stopping short of going
ballistic. Because that's how we hash out the issues and come to terms
with the most difficult aspects of a situation.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
It could be politics; it could be some esoteric point of religion or
spirituality ("How many ass- holes can dance on the head of a Shiva
lingam?");

So how is that point really any more "esoteric" than any of the other
common points of spiritual discussion? :-) LOL.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
it could be a personality conflict over different styles of
presentation.
So how do these two otherwise nice human beings act towards each other
on the newsgroup when one of these differences of opinion rears its
ugly head?
They don't. They start acting for the crowd.

Again, you honestly think this doesn't happen face to face, like at
parties and stuff. You ought to get out more??

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
Both parties argue with each other, but they're not really talking to
each other. They're talking to the lurkers. They're posturing for the
crowd. And they don't even care that in the process of doing so,
they're treating another human being like less than a human being, and
demonstrating to anyone who has eyes to see that they aren't one,
either.

Conclusion doesn't follow. That IS one common way in which human beings
act. And sometimes the drama is very entertaining.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
I've been as guilty of this as anyone else. More so, perhaps.

Perhaps you're guilty of it right now. Are you posturing a position of
"luke warm peace" and "holding one's tongue" perhaps in order to appear
a suitably pacifist Buddhist? Or not?

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
So I find it a phenomenon that I can readily identify with in myself,
not one that I have to project onto others and distance myself from.

Oh, don't worry, you'll be back to yourself in no time, flaming the heck
outa me. :-)

:) :) you have a point here :)

Post by Monkey FourSevenZeroOne

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
And it's not just me, and not just the Usenet; it's pretty much
*everyone*. I have met very few people on the planet who *don't* do
this.

There we go. That wasn't so hard. What is questionable is your
insinuation that there is necessarily something wrong with it. There
can be, but you haven't fingered it yet.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
So what happens to cause this? What's the "hot button" that causes
someone to drop their natural humanity and start acting for the crowd
instead of from a sense of who and what they really are?

What on earth makes you think that posturing dramatically for one's
position isn't a part of natural humanity, when you just noted that
everyone on earth does it?
Believe it or not, I think I can answer that question. What makes you
think it isn't natural is some religio/philosophical ideal/illusion.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
In my opinion, it's two things. The "hot button" itself is attach-
ment, just as Buddha described it.

Bingo. Was I right or was I right? :-)
Now my opinion on attachment. It is natural and GOOD to be "attached"
to one's perspective IF one is both passionate about a particular issue
AND truly well-informed and well-intentioned.
Unfortunately, it is also natural, and not so much good, to be heavily
attached to one's perspective if one is merely passionate, and NOT so
well-informed or well-intentioned.
The final case, being well-informed and not very passionate, well, the
danger there is simply that you end up accomplishing NOTHING, because
drama queens and "evil doers" just push you right out of the spotlight.
So give me someone who has done their homework on a subject AND is
passionately *attached* to seeing a "decent outcome" regarding that
subject. That's what's effective. That's what gets the job done. Fuck
whatever is "spiritual" and "unattached".
The positive side of unattachment is being able to let something go when
there's nothing you can do about it, and beyond that, who needs it.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
When an individual makes the fundamental mistake of assuming that he
*is* his beliefs,

Then the individual is merely guilty of a rather uninsightful
overgeneralization.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
any attack on or criticism of those beliefs becomes a personal attack.
"The other person isn't just attacking my political stance or my
spiritual beliefs or my behavior; they're attacking *me*. I have to
attack back." The other factor is the very human desire for
"stroking," for being appreciated by other people and/or praised or
respected by them. So these perfectly nice people "act out" for the
crowd, with the often unconscious desire to be "stroked" by the crowd,
to be praised by them for standing up for the right political belief or
spiritual belief or way of acting.
And the crowd obliges by doing just that. They play "pile on the
victim" and start dashing off their *own* act-out-for-the-crowd posts,
agreeing with the person they agree with

Agreeing with the person they agree with. How strange.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
and helping him or her trash the person they don't agree with or have a
grudge against.

Trashing the person they don't agree with is the down side. Yup. I
think it's best to take that in moderation. And that is putting the
finger on the real problem with attachment: totally over the top
trashing or damaging anyone who doesn't agree with you.
Then again, let me ask you, if someone doesn't trash Bush, Cheney, and
Rummy, won't they just keep on fucking us?? So isn't it also
*necessary* to do a bit of that "trashing" as long as one doesn't lose
oneself in it or go totally over the top and make oneself look like an
idiot?? To answer my own question: yup. Also necessary, and also
natural.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
We see it every day, on this newsgroup and on most others. We
*participate* in it every day, on this newsgroup or on others.
In my opinion both phenomena are based on two simple things.
Attachment to one's thoughts and beliefs, and lack of self knowledge.
That is, lack of knowledge of one's Self.

Oh boy... :( here we go... :-)

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
In the absence of a firm knowledge of who and what one really is,

And what exactly would that be, Unc? Knowledge of genetics and
evolution? Knowledge of psychology? Knowledge of brain chemistry?
Knowledge of "the soul"? Knowledge of the unconscious? Knowledge of
one's place in the social, political realities in which one lives?
Knowledge of one's artistic capacity? What a person IS -- that's
something vast and multi-faceted, and one never really fully knows it,
because it is ever changing, and expanding.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
one requires "feedback" from the world around to help them shore up the
illusory *image* of what one is.

One also requires feedback from "the world" to get some realistic idea
of what one has really become (as opposed to one's own possibly illusory
idea of this). In other words, getting feedback from the world is also
very necessary, and natural.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
With such know- ledge, the individual is free to tell the world and
the crowd around them to go suck eggs and equally free just do what
they bloody well please.

One is always free to do that, no matter what (um, depending on just how
far one goes with what is done). And should it ever be otherwise?

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
This came to mind today, strangely enough, because of a film review.
There is a new film starting in Paris next week called "Travelers and
Magicians." It's made by a guy named Khyentse Norbu. You may have
seen his previous film, "The Cup." If you haven't, you've made a
terrible mistake, and should remedy it immediately.
Khyentse Norbu is not your everyday filmmaker. He's not your everyday
guy, either. He's a Tibetan lama, the head of a Buddhist monastery in
Bhutan. He's also a tulku, the recognized reincar- nation of a famous
19th-century Tibetan saint.

Sorry, but I do not recognize him as such. :-)

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
He worked on the film set of "Khundun" and caught the film bug and
started making his own films, which are the work of a master, in more
ways than one. "The Cup" was one of the most universal, charming,
funny, and spiritually uplifting films I've ever seen. And it stood on
its own as a film, for people who have never cared a whit about either
spirituality or Tibet.

I'll keep an eye out for it, and see if I agree.

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
But that's not what got me thinking about "performing for the crowd."
It was the memory of meeting him a few years ago, at a benefit showing
of "The Cup" in Santa Fe. It was a fascinating experience for me, one
I will never forget.
Picture this red-robed young Tibetan monk, with a shaved head and shoes
that were so worn that one toe stuck out of them. Picture him standing
in a crowd of extremely wealthy Santa Feans (the cost of the showing
was $1000 per head, to raise money for the monas- tery the film was
shot in). Picture them coming up to him, one after another after
another, each and every one of them running some number on him, trying
to get his attention or his approval or whatever it was they were
trying to get. This went on for almost an hour, with almost all of the
people in the room doing their damnedest to get him to respond to them
*differently* than he responded to everyone else, to give them some
kind of "special" feedback or praise or attention. Some of them went
so far as to stand there right in front of him and write out a big
check, hoping he'd react in some way. Some railed against the Chinese,
again hoping he'd react.
Khyentse Norbu didn't react. Or, more precisely, he reacted *exactly*
the same to each and every person who came up to talk to him. He
smiled, was pleasant, and remained throughout *himself*. Not one of
the people had the slightest effect on him in any way. He felt no need
to pander to them, no need to perform for them, no need to do
*anything* other than be himself, and act the way he *always* does.
It was quite impressive.

Not to me. I don't see that he did a thing except "act spiritual", And
I consider that kind of an act to be about the easiest thing in the
world to pull off. And you wouldn't have known if he was really "being
himself", because you aren't him.
"Acting spiritual" can easily be just as much of a performance as
anything else, huh?

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
*This* is what got me thinking about "performing for the crowd" today.
While it's an understandable phenomenon, it's essentally a very sad
one. But most people don't know there is an alternative. They've
never seen anyone act differently. Many of them don't even know that
it's *possible* to act differently.

"And all I gotta do is act naturally."

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
I do. I got to see it in action. I know there is another option.
Now you do, too. Do with it what you will.

Nice performance Unc. :-)
You've given me a funny idea for a performance I'd like to do some time.
You know how people are always doing these funny little sketches on how
"you might be a redneck if..."?
You might be "spiritual" if...
LOL.
Now here's a joke about letting everything happen "naturally" where joy,
An American tourist goes on a trip to China. While there, he is very
sexually promiscuous and doesn't use a condom at all the whole time.
A week after arriving back home in the States, he wakes one morning to
find his penis covered with bright green and purple spots.
Horrified, he immediately goes to see a doctor. The doctor, never having
seen anything like this before, orders some tests and tells the man to
return in two days for the results.
The man returns a couple of days later and the doctor says: "I've got
bad news for you. You've contracted Mongolian VD.
It's very rare and almost unheard of here. We know very little about
it." The man looks a little perplexed and says: "Well, give me a shot
or something and fix me up, doc".
The doctor answers: "I'm sorry, there's no known cure. We're going to
have to amputate your penis". The man screams in horror, "Absolutely
not! I want a second opinion".
The doctor replies: "Well, go ahead and get one if you want, but surgery
is your only choice".
The next day, the man seeks out a Chinese doctor, figuring that he'll
know more about the disease. The Chinese doctor examines his penis and
proclaims: "Ah, yes, Mongolian VD. Vely lare disease".
The guy says to the doctor: "Yeah, yeah, I already know that, but what
can we do? My American doctor wants to operate and amputate my penis?"
The Chinese doctor shakes his head and laughs: "Stupid
Amelican docta, always want to cut, cut, cut. Make more money, that
way. No need to opelate!"
"Oh, Thank God!", the man replies. "Yes," says the Chinese doctor,
"You no worry! Save money. You wait two weeks. Dick fall off by
itself!"
***
So too, hopefully, in the end the bare, significant necessities of a
situation will eventually assert themselves over all the drama and
posturing, be it spiritual or otherwise, but both will always be a
natural and necessary part of the process.
-Jer
*****************************************************************

Post by Koyaanisqatsi Fahrvergnugen
"Mostly when I come to Bhutan I'm supposed to play God,
which has been such a frustration for me for so many years.
What I crave, is the chance to climb down from my throne
and speak to ordinary people. I wish I could go with them
and talk with them, to a bar, a disco, dancing, whatever.
But I still don't have that courage to do it."
-- Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche (aka: Khyentse Norbu)
The Bitter and the Sweet of Temporary Things.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/article/0,13673,501030203-411452,00.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Dzongsar+Jamyang+Khyentse+Rinpoche%2C+Travelers+and+Magicians