My Little Pony, Bronies, & Possible New Worlds

I wonder if this 'movement', phenomena - call it what you will - of Bronies is a small piece of a much large phenomena.

Ultimately, once you remove the culture of My Little Pony (not that you need to), a Brony is about two things:

1. Overcoming fears (of judgment, of others, of oneself), and
2. Permission. Not permission in the sense of attaining permission from some external authority (although there is an aspect of this present in overcoming our fears), but permission in the sense of realizing and identifying certain truths for what they are and allowing ourselves to accept them.

We could be seeing the insurgence of deep spiritual values of Humanity having freed itself of its religious shackles and dependency. Over the past year I have toyed with the idea of a potential change coming into our world. (You can read further on posts like Human Resources and the Pursuit of Empire, A New Axial Age for an Uncharted World, Qi: Evolution & Entropy, The Paths We Walk, A Map of Humanity, The Spiritual Sojourn of the Lay-monks.)


The Dalai Lama spoke of this very same thing when he identified the need today of "an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics. [T]hat it is possible and worthwhile to attempt a new secular approach to universal ethics". From "Beyond Religion: Ethics for a Whole World", 2011

As I mentioned earlier, there is no need to remove the culture of My Little Pony (4th generation) from the equation, but in this case, at least temporarily, I think there might be. Ultimately, and originally, the My Little Pony tv show was aimed at young girls and that can and usually is a difficult sigma to cross.



Many men  fear being viewed as effeminine, mistaking certain values (such as compassion) as feminine and signs of weakness. (It only further compiles the problem that 'haters' going to hate').



If we take a close look at the values promoted in My Little Pony (the 6 Elements of Harmony) we can see that they are not to be scoffed at. Generosity and Kindness (Compassion?), Loyalty and Honesty (Army core values) Laughter (happiness) and Magic.

Some might consider these values of a more feminine aspect of spirituality, but I'm not sure I would even want to use the term "feminine aspect". I don't believe these values belong exclusively to women. These are rock-solid values I think our modern day world is desperately in need of today.

The people and attitudes that conflict with these value are the blight of our times. Selfishness, Envy, Delusion, Cruelty, and Fear. Attach the cute, feminine child-like My Little Pony and it makes for an easy target for the weak and fearful. Haters' going to hate.



Too often Bronies are stereo-typically portrayed as single, creepy 35 year old, fat, bearded, unemployed (or uneducated) males living in their parent's basement. The fact of the matter is very different. (It's worth checking out the documentary Bronies, the Extremely Unexpected Adult Fans of My Little Pony. It is currently available on Netflix).

My son is a Brony and I am a proud as can be - not only of the values he embraces - but that he held no fear or anxiety to share this with me. And now, having watched the first 3 seasons of My Little Pony (65 episodes - nearly 24 hours worth of it!) I can honestly say that I too am a Brony. I can't wait for the first Brony-con to come to Ottawa.

The Source-Mind: g0d's Atheistic Nature

(Continued from "Our Antenna-Brain and the Source-Mind")

"Our Antenna-Brain and the Source-Mind" ended with a question: 'Do we each have a Source-Mind or could there be only one Source-Mind with various and numerous Antenna-brains' expressions/interpretations?'

We are going to proceed based on that assumption that the external Source-Mind is singular and unique. Not a multiplicity; that we all 'tune' into the same original Source-Mind (and ergo are all interpretations of it. Who we are and what it is are all one in the same).


What would this Source-Mind, this atheistic-g0d's nature be?


(I like this term - g0d -  or its spelling at least. The word God is a loaded word. Everyone brings their own baggage with it; their own assumptions. At least with g0d - on some level - we're forced to question what we're talking about... as we should.)

“The ground of all being, whether material or spiritual, whether in the form of men, beasts, or gods, heaven, earth, or hell, is an all-inclusive, unitary reality, beyond sense-apprehension, ultimate in substance, infinite in essence, and self-sufficient, it is the only really existent entity. This reality is most commonly called Brahma. No precise definitions are attempted.   

“...regularly refer to Brahman as a neuter something, with out motion or feeling, the impersonal matrix from which the universe has issued and to which it will in time return. This it, this One Thing, is the substantial substratum of everything.” John B. Noss,“Man's Religions”, Revised Edition, The Macmillan Company 1956, pg. 129-130

Even from a biblical perspective we find an evasive Brahman-like something. In the opening lines of the bible (Genesis 1:2) we find the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit, Sophia – God personified) hovering or brooding over “the filaments” or “the waters”. It is uncertain and unclear what “the filaments” or “the waters” are, but one thing is clear. There is no mention of the Spirit of God creating them. They are preexistent (probably eternally co-existent) and the building blocks of everything and anything, spiritual or material.

Sources from the Bhagavad Gita and several Upanishads agreed with this while maintaining it within the context of personifying this state.

"The knowing Self as Conscious-Awareness is not born, it never dies, it sprang from No Thing. No Thing sprang from 'That'. The Ancient, Primordial Consciousness inherent in every being is Eternal. It is not slain even when the body dies." The Katha Upanishad 2.18 

...and as echoed in the Bhagavad Gita 11:19-20

 "You are without origin, middle or end. Your glory is unlimited. You have numberless arms, and the sun and moon are Your eyes. I see You with blazing fire coming from from Your mouth, burning this entire universe by Your own radiance. Although You are one, You spread throughout the sky and the planets, and all space between. O great one, seeing this wondrous and terrible form, all planetary systems are perturbed." Bhagavad Gita 11:19-20

“Vishnu is one, and yet He is certainly all-pervading. By His inconceivable potency, in spite of His one form, He is present everywhere, as the sun appears in many places at once.” - Gopala-tapani Upanishad 1:21

This Source-Mind is significantly more like "Om", as first described in the Upanishads, as an all-encompassing mystical entity; the original vibrations; more like the Hindu concept of Brahman; akin to the Taoists Eternal Tao – impersonal. 

“Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao. Names can be named, but not the Eternal Name.” Tao Teh Ching, verse 1

Not a being; it most definitely is a step away from an  anthropomorphic concept of "God".

Like negative theology, Its nature is so absolutely different from our existence that it is utterly incomprehensible. It is by nature one which language cannot describe.

Westerners - for the most part- have been conditioned to believe certain attributes God must necessarily have; yes even the atheist too - they just reject the concept of God because of these self same attributes.

Omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, and Personhood. (although I'm not convinced omnipotency and omnibenevolence are at all compatible without some sort of involuntary and necessary self kenosis.)

And it is at this point when we come face-to-face with the potential of g0d's Atheistic Nature.

It does not need meet all five traditional standards. (Most traditional concepts of God, especially monotheistic ones, hold five attributes to God.)

It cannot be all-knowing because It is not conscious or cognate. It lacks Personhood. It is impersonal. It cannot be said to be omnipotent simply because it does not consciously choose to do anything.

It is debatable whether It would be omnibenevolent or not. You don't need a mind or consciousness to feel. We could even debate whether being omnibenevolent requires feeling love, but rather being Love itself.

The only criterion this g0d would clearly maintain is omnipresence. And it would be through this omnipresence where we would find its facet within ourselves.

“I am ever present to those who have realized me in every creature. Seeing all life as my manifestation, they are never separated from me.” - Bhagavad Gita 6:30 

 

"The Self, smaller than the smallest, greater than the greatest, is hidden in the Heart of every Being." - Katha Upanishad 1.2.20

Brahman is described as the ground of all being, both material and spiritual. The all-inclusive unitary reality. 
Prior to any creation there is believed to have been "Shunyakasha", the emptiness or the void. But it was more than nothingness. Everything existed in a latent state of potential. It wasn't that this void was empty and filled with nothing, but quite the opposite. It was filled with passive potential. It was filled with everything, waiting; pregnant with all possibilities.

It is important to find words or terms to describe these "states". The Upanishad's, the Bhagavad Gita, and commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita (and Hinduism) would seem to lend themselves best to some of these concepts. These quotes would compare the Source-Mind to Brahman, and our "Antenna-Brains" (or souls, or possibly minds) to the Atman or Paramatma.
As John B. Noss says, 'we can call the ultimate reality Brahman-Atman'.

“The true self of a man and the world-soul (paramatman: the universal atman) are one; they are identical... the All-Soul is the very stuff of which the human soul and its consciousness are formed, and there is no real distinction between the former and the latter. We may therefore equate Brahma, the objective All, and Atman, the subjective or particular self, and call the ultimate reality henceforth Brahman-Atman, recognizing thereby that the objective and subjective are one.” John B. Noss' “Man's Religions” Revised Edition, The Macmillan Company 1956, pg. 131

"Brahma is all that is objective, the whole external world given to us by our senses, all that exists outside of us. "But this is only half the fact. Brahma is also all that is subjective, the whole inward world of feeling and self-consciousness, with which the innermost self is identified. The term for the inner self here employed is atman... in a deeper sense it refers to the innermost and unseen self of a man as distinct from his body, his sense-organs, and his brain, that is to say, his transcendental self or ego." John B. Noss, "Man's Religious", Revised Edition, The MacMillan Company 1956, pg. 130

"The Absolute Truth is realized in three phases of understanding, namely Brahman, or the impersonal all-pervasive spirit; Paramatma, or the localized aspect of the Supreme within the heart of all living entities..." A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's "Bhagavad Gita, As It Is", The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1983, pg 62

This is no attempt to sell Hinduism. It's just that its various ideas and terms fit so well with the idea of a singular Source-Mind, with all life being aspects or reflections of it.

It means we are all interconnected. It not only means we are all connected to a 'divine source', but that we ourselves carry that divine source, that potential within.

We do not need to seek and look for g0d somewhere out there. It means we need only look within ourselves with a clear and open mind.

We need to be able and willing to drop all the baggage we carry about what God is or isn't (theism and atheism). and simply encounter and experience the g0d that dwells within and links us to all.

In this endeavor I think certainty is an obstacle. Maybe that's something that catches my attention and attracts me to Hinduism. Theologically, it's fuzzy around the edges.

Water in the Cracks

Through my continuing practice of meditation - really, it's more my practice of mindfulness - I've come to see that

- my mind wants to worry - 

(I know there are a number of implications to this statement. It sounds as if my mind has a will of its own! I also wonder if this could be some sort of variation of the monkey mind?)

No sooner than I get over one worry or it resolves itself, I find another. There's no reprieve.
I've got to resolve this.

~         ~         ~

"The highest form of goodness is like water" Tao Teh Ching, Verse 8

 ~         ~         ~

I think the answer is to Meet my worry mind like water
...but what is water like?

"Water is fluid, soft and yielding... Water is the softest thing, yet it can penetrate mountains and earth. This shows clearly the principle of softness overcoming hardness" - Lao Tzu

It can find itself into the smallest nooks and crannies; it deeply penetrates something; contracting and expanding; irreparably breaking it open.

"Dripping water hollows out stone, not through force but through persistence" - Ovid

Water benefits, it doesn't compete.
It pools in the lowest places, and like hope, can always be found in the seemingly lowliest, darkest, and loneliest of times.

So... what does it mean to meet my worrying mind like water?

  ~         ~         ~

     Meditation is like water.

It slowly penetrates and seeps into the road. It ever so slowly, persistently, freezes and thaws; contracts and expands, until the road is littered with potholes, exposed and broken. So too does meditation do this to the hidden and inner workings of the mind. It may not be a quick process, but it's an unstoppable one. Patience. Persistence.


I only hope my patience and persistence continues.

Our Antenna-brain & the Source-Mind

Continued from I Don't Know Where My Mind's At...

[For the time being we're going to assume and explore the potentials of the possibility of our minds not being housed within our brains. We are also going to assume that the human brain functions mostly like a radio or an antenna, tuning into a frequency that is our (external) mind.]

Firstly, if the mind is external, like a guitar string vibrating down the corridor of time (an expression that might be more accurate that I originally thought), our Antenna-brains are tuning into its vibrations but not the original "guitar-string" itself; not the originating Source-Mind, but its waves.

This distinction is important. The vibrations, or waves or frequency would have to permeate everything, everywhere (near omnipresent) for ourselves and our minds to function (which they normally do). However, the Source-Mind itself does not need to permeate everything everywhere.

I think I had inadvertently described it very well: "A guitar string vibrating down the corridor of time".

It would indeed be a corridor of sorts in the sense that it would be bound by 'walls', or barriers.

Something that divides and separates it from us - or more specifically - our reality. A different reality or dimension. (I'd like to call it 'branes' (as in membranes) but it'll cause far too much confusion between 'branes' and 'brains').  Possibly Planes of Existence. 

The details matter little at this point. What matters is when the waves of vibrations coming off the Source-Mind come into 'contact' with these 'walls' the effect might be similar to ripples in a pond.



(Now remember, we're dealing with a time-space continuum. These 'ripples' would permeate the entire continuum which could produce a frequency that would inundate everything, everywhere).

There could be some interesting properties; particularly how our minds perceive and function in time.

On a timeline, to move forwards or (hypothetically) backwards is to move, or travel, forward or backwards in time. It's never been clear what a lateral move would be.


Could these vibrations actually be lateral movements in time?

If we look at these vibrations from the Source-Mind as ripples in a pond, and the brain as an antenna sensitive to their frequencies, then it would be possible to be aware of both future and past events.

The Source that the Antenna-brain of "yesterday" tunes into is from the future.
The Source that the Antenna-brain of "now" tunes into is current
The Source that the Antenna-brain of "tomorrow" tunes into is from the past.

On the assumption the external mind is true, it poses some interesting questions:

Could this explain premonitions, prophecies, deja-vu, synchronicity and similar phenomenon?
Could it explain (real) psychics and psychic-like abilities?
Could an echo, a vibration from a source-mind exist and be perceivable as a ghost?

Do we each have an Source-Mind or could there be only one Source-Mind with various and numerous Antenna-brains' expressions/interpretations?




(To be continued on "The Source-Mind: g0d's Atheistic Nature")

I Don't Know Where My Mind's At

Most modern science/medicine tend to see the human brain as a sort of wet computer (possibly a super-computer). Many features of the brain remain a mystery, or at least as of yet unsolved. One such aspect is that of consciousness, sentience, or the mind. "Where" is the mind housed in the brain? What physical aspects of the brain control the mind? Does the brain produce a mind?



However, there is another theory growing in popularity out there.
Although certain aspects of the brain do indeed function like a computer, the brain itself does not house the mind. In this aspect, the brain is less like a computer and more like a radio, or possibly an antenna. It "tunes in" to the frequency that is the mind.

The implications are far reaching. This theory would necessitate that our minds are somewhere 'out there'; or at least outside our bodies. It also means that the mind may function like (or actually be) a wave.

We could run wild with this theory.
Could a different brain tune in to the frequency of another mind? Could this be telepathy? Could it explain those moments of deja vu?

Could the mind be like a vibrating guitar string through time, our brain tuning into the frequency of its vibration? If so, wouldn't what we perceive as our self (our mind, our ego) actually only be an echo of the true mind?

Or is it possible that there is only one true mind and all of our billions of brains tune in and produce various interpretations of it? We're all different reflections of the same original source; and wouldn't that make us all - somehow - interconnected?

What happens when our bodies (our brains) die, especially if the mind is not housed there?

What are we truly?
Our physical bodies/brains, or the external mind?
Are we only an expression of this mind we're tuning into?



...to be continued on "Our Antenna-brain and the Source-Mind"...

In Justice

When injustice is committed, a sense of justice must be appeased.

"Peace is not merely the absence of war, but the presence of justice". Albert Einstein

Firstly, let's be clear here that I am not speaking of legal justice, or a justice system itself. I am speaking of injustice on a personal level. How we cope and struggle with it ourselves.

But what is this "justice"? Is it discipline or punishment, or both? Is it retribution or revenge? Exactly what brings an individual who's suffered injustice solace?

Is it punishment? Knowing that the individual who inflicted the injustice is themself made to suffer?
Is it discipline? Knowing the individual who inflicted the injustice has been taught the errors of their ways and has reformed?


Do these things truly bring us peace, or only hold up a mirror to our souls?

Is the desire for punishment indicative of the hatred in our hearts; a longing for revenge?
Could the goal of discipline be a sign of altruistic love and compassion?


Do we really want that choice within our hands? I think the nature of justice (disciplinary or punitive) can lie within the guilty party, if we allow it to, freeing ourselves of that burden. Not in the sense of abandoning our responsibilities, but questioning the guilty party's motives and intentions. Is it my place to question if there are demons to battle if they aren't mine? And if there are no demons to battle, my questioning creates my own.

Ultimately, the question is whether the individual who inflicts injustice is capable of escaping their own state of confusion (delusion) and begin to learn.

If not, then they remain in a state of delusion ('they're not guilty') and thus suffer ('punishment') - possibly feeling injustice has inflicted upon them.

If they can find a way out of their denial or delusion, then they have the potential for growth and have hopes to learn ('discipline').

In this scenario it is in the perpetrator's hands as to whether justice serves punishment or discipline, not the victim's. In this way we can be free of the burden of their guilt and their conflict.

Our Own Worst Critics

I can clearly remember the day! No, the moment.
It must have been decades ago. I was sitting in my friends' backyard having a beer on a beautiful summer afternoon. Their backdoor exited into a block concrete "patio". Patio's not really what it was. It was big enough to have a BBQ, but that's it. It had painted black metal railings and concrete steps that led down to their grassy backyard - where I was sitting. Two garden homes shared this concrete stepped exit.

As I sat and sipped my beer I watched their neighbour's young son playing and climbing on the patio/steps. He wore only a diaper.

He hung his legs over the concrete edge, in an attempt to climb off the ledge rather than use the steps, but his legs weren't long enough to reach the ground.

Totally disconnected from the scene - and apparently indifferent - I simply watched. I knew what was coming. The weight of the boy's legs would drag him over the edge, he would painfully scrape his soft belly on the rough concrete edge, and he would cry.

I sat - detached - and watched my prediction play out like a premonition.

I didn't intervene. I simply observed. There was a great sense of calm in me... which was peculiar.

I remember that moment so well because it was that incident that convinced me, all those years ago, that I lacked compassion.

But the part that never made sense to me was my profound sense of calm and being at peace.

It has only been very recently, in this past year, when I 'reconnected' to this memory. I recognized the person in the memory, where I don't think I have ever recognized that person before.
Maybe because I've only recently been introduced to this person through my practice of meditation.

The Watcher.

That aspect of me that is simply aware. That part of me that watches. In meditation he (it?) is that which observers the thoughts. He is always calm and serene.

Although I could never have recognized him all those years ago, I believe that is who he was. On that day, I had a lucid (traditionally non-meditative) moment.

~

This is important because that same moment was when I had judged and condemned myself as lacking compassion. It had shaped my perspective of myself every since.

It's odd how a condemnation like this can steal your permission to grow, isn't it?

I'm not convinced that I lack compassion. Sure, I can work on my compassion more, and I have my moments when I can be insensitive and self-serving... but we all have these dark moments.

Had The Watcher not been 'dominant' and 'in control', I've no doubt I would have lunged forward and caught the child.

I suppose the lesson here is that we must be compassionate and forgiving to ourselves at times.

This may seem like an unimportant or petty story, but its ramifications to me are significant.

I believe compassion and solace are intrinsically entangled through dharma. (The Dharma Entanglement)... and if I allow myself to believe I am devoid and hopeless in one of these 'traits'... only serves as a barrier and an obstacle.

Jung-Joong-Dong of Jungshin Sooyang; "Silence in Stillness, Stillness in Motion": A Study and Practice into Mindfulness

Introduction

“[T]he more disciplined and cultivated the mind is, the more disciplined and cultivated will be the student's use of Taekwon-do.

“A clear pond becomes muddy if agitated and then returns to its original state when allowed to settle undisturbed.

“We can attain peace of mind through meditation, by emptying our minds of all petty thoughts and returning to the natural state of man... an active moment to reflect on our past mistakes in silence and in the privacy of our thoughts... to continue our self-improvement towards becoming better men and women. This active thought process in silence is called “Jung-Joong-Dong”.”

Jungshin Sooyang ('Moral Culture'), General Choi (founder of Traditional Taekwon-do), 1999

This is the launching point for me; Jung-Joong-Dong of Jungshin Sooyang.

Where many would continue on the challenging path onto 2^nd Dan Black Belt (and upwards!) I have veered off on a tangent to pursue a very different avenue.

This is the natural progression from the finale of my Black Belt Thesis of Jan. 2012.

The Tattooed Buddha

What if pain and suffering aren't the same thing?
Is it possible to feel pain without suffering?
The Buddha taught that they were different.






Suffering is not the same as pain, although it is not always easy to distinguish between the two.
What further complicates the issue is our use of vocabulary. When we speak of this suffering we are speaking of it as the noun, not the verb.
We can always say that we suffer (verb) through our pain.

Pain is an unpleasant sensation.
Suffering is a mental and emotional response. 

Pain is an inescapable part of life. It is inevitable.
Suffering is optional. 

It's fine to say this, but what does this look like practically?

I think sometimes people with tattoos may have unknowingly tapped into this buddha-nature (innately knowing the difference between pain and suffering).

Yes, most tattooed people would say that they suffered through the hour(s) of getting the tattoo(s) (but let's remember, we aren't talking about "suffering" as a verb). Most tattooed people will tell you that it hurt and was a painful experience (and it is), but I doubt they would say that they suffered.

I think there's a lesson to learn here.
Maybe - just maybe - tattooed people have inadvertently stumbled across a deep aspect of our buddha-nature; a natural human condition that most have forgotten.

We will inevitably face and experience pain in life, but suffering is a choice.

The Illusion of Meditation

I think too often we are 'sold' on the fantasied, romanticized imagery of meditation,  and I think this might be harmful.

My favourite are the pictures and especially landscapes associated with meditation. (Try googling meditation landscapes).

I know I can't sit on a beautiful sunny ocean shore and have any hope in hell to meditate. The sheer beauty of the surroundings are a brutal distraction. (But then again, I could be wrong. Maybe we're supposed to get to a point where we can 'tune-out' the surrounding beauty.... naah).

I think the Venerable Henepola Gunaratana agrees:

"We have certain images of meditation. Meditation is something done in quiet caves by tranquil people who move slowly. Those are training conditions. They are set up to foster concentration and to learn the sill of mindfulness. Once you have learned that skill, however, you can dispense with the training restrictions, and you should. You don't need to move at a snail's pace to be mindful. You don't even need to be calm. You can be mindful while solving problems in intensive calculus. You can be mindful in the middle of a football scrimmage. You can even be mindful in the midst of a raging fury"

Mindfulness in Plain English, pg. 93

My first (chance) encounter with mindfulness (before I even had a name for it) was during my Black Belt Examination. It was quite profound. But wouldn't have described myself or my actions as anything remotely close to quiet, tranquil or slow moving.

I wonder sometimes whether there's an unproductive industry out there that - really - only sells the idea of meditation. All the imagery and trappings; but little to no substance.
I think this might be the illusion of meditation.
I also think we should be careful of this; to be mindful of it.