Slavedom

[samadhi]

Diebert,

sam: I don't see a problem with him talking about his experience. He never said that suing someone is the way to become self-supporting which is what you are implying. He was just giving us some background on his center.

Diebert: But what you get when you boil down the post is exactly what I described. The favor I've done him, and you, is to show how to cut away the fluff and see the underlying harsh logic in the eye, no matter how ugly it might appear.

Oh please, you parade your magnificent ego and call it a favor to us? Aren't you the special one!

You didn't like what he posted, fine. But then you try to make him wrong for that. Why not just say you didn't like it because of x, y or z instead of trying to make it about his supposed hyprocrisy? You make up some character flaw and try to pin it on him when all he was doing was describing a bit of his life.

Diebert: Wouldn't you agree I've been awfully nice and patient here?

sam: No, you haven't, just the opposite in fact.

Diebert: The fact I still talk to you is an act beyond generosity. It's like going to San Quentin prison with a bucket of roses to visit Level 4.

Again with your ego. What the hell is with you? Don't talk to me if you don't want to talk to me but don't say it's MY problem! It's YOUR f*****g problem. I'm perfectly fine talking to whoever I wish and getting whatever response they feel like. But just because I have a point to share doesn't mean I'm some kind of brilliant genius and they're some kind of lowlife scum. Sheesh, get a grip, will you.

sam: Who said his point was to describe how to become less reliant on doing work or living somewhere cheap? That's your strawman. He was describing his situation, he never said it is the best or only way to do it. It was his way, that's all.

Diebert: It's the topic of this thread, mate. If he indeed just described his history - the fact is he didn't.

He explicitly judged a perceived 'ego' in all posts in the thread, thereby suggesting his posts wouldn't contain it. He concluded all of the made suggestions would be 'impossible'. He added a few slurs about things here being absurd and ridiculous just after judging the above posts to be slurs.

Actually he pointed out that women were again being bashed which was accurate. He pointed out the judgments of others that regards everyone else's life as slavery, again accurate. And he said what was being offered was the old ego strategy for creating utopia. So where were the slurs your refer to? What were the judgments?

All this sets the stage for the description of his situation to somehow solidify the above points but it didn't. Now you come here defending him, to weasel about his not literary claiming his point would be relevant to the discussion. Nice job, Sam. Inmates always stick up for their own kind!

And back to your ego wanting to make it my problem. Sorry Diebert, I just said he was describing his situation which is accurate. You want to plaster your judgment on him and make it about that. It isn't. It is about you needing to judge him simply because he offered a description of his situation and your need to judge me because I pointed that out.

sam: Well, hooking up with his benefactor certainly was an opportunity out of the blue. The idea I got was, "pay attention and things will happen," not "look for someone with cash to set you up."

Diebert: The question remains: where's the selfless aspect exactly? Where does it contradict any of the posts that went before him? It's not me setting up that expectation, it was Mikiel.

Who said he was trying to contradict anyone? That would be you. Why don't you just stick to what he actually said? Why the need to pile judgment upon judgment onto him and then kick him in the groin for it? Their YOUR judgments, you deal with it!

sam: You don't have to like his style. But ascribing cynical motives to him has more to do with you than him.

Diebert: Actually I didn't do that. You really are a lousy reader.

Oh really? Let's see, didn't you write: But as a wheelchair guy with a moderate bag of money he naturally needed a builder to make the most of it and manage the estate for all practical purposes. How handy to find a flipped out stonemason basically looking to be taken for a ride.

Do you really want to deny the cynical motive you are ascribing to him? Looks like I know exactly what I'm reading but you don't know what the hell you're writing.

The point was about when one would strip away all the Christmas decoration, what was left was the hooking up with someone who got money, or a farm. This contains no judgment, I invite Mikiel, and you, to name things as they are.

I just did. Why don't you try reading for a change. And yes, he described his situation, so what? I don't see why you think it implied anything about anyone else.

If I was in situation I'd probably do something similar. I just wouldn't call it selfless or spiritually superior to other suggestions made in this thread. We're still talking about business, Mammon, the whole materialistic dynamic. Of course there are motives but let them be naked.

He didn't say anything about being selfless or spiritually superior by creating his farm, that again would be you.

sam: Why not give us your evidence instead of your opinions?

Diebert: Are you requiring me to prove a negative? I've challenged Mikiel's apparent lack of honesty, hiding of motives and lack of substance ('evidence') in his post. It's up to him to provide more clarity but I see no reason for him to do so. The pipeline told me :)

Right, you simply decided to tee off on him for the judgments you read into his description. The lack of honesty, hiding of motives and lack of substance appears to be yours, not his. Funny the way that works out, isn't it?

sam: Do you always insult people you are trying to befriend?

Diebert: If only they would feel insulted! Then there's hope they might start to think why they feel that way. I'm sure Mikiel would understand with his admitted 'rude boy' persona.

Ah, the ego that loves to describe its vicious assaults as benevolent guidance. How wonderful of you, you're so thoughtful and caring of others!

Better to see it as probing, sharp instruments to get to the bottom of more often than not intuited shadow spots. No point in doing that with people who live completely in the shadow.

I'm sure you want to justify it. Nevertheless, it was uncalled for.

sam: Fine. I just found your post to be an assault and battery without provocation.

Diebert: So sue me!

Just cop to it and we'll call it a day.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

You didn't like what he posted, fine. But then you try to make him wrong for that. Why not just say you didn't like it because of x, y or z instead of trying to make it about his supposed hyprocrisy? You make up some character flaw and try to pin it on him when all he was doing was describing a bit of his life.

I didn't like it because of his hypocrisy and flaws in character that the post illustrated, which I all pointed out. Your supposed problem with this tells a lot about yourself. Actually this need to expose yourself with your hopeless arguments is the very thing tempting me to keep it going.

Diebert: The fact I still talk to you is an act beyond generosity. It's like going to San Quentin prison with a bucket of roses to visit Level 4.

Again with your ego. What the hell is with you? Don't talk to me if you don't want to talk to me but don't say it's MY problem! It's YOUR f*****g problem. I'm perfectly fine talking to whoever I wish and getting whatever response they feel like. But just because I have a point to share doesn't mean I'm some kind of brilliant genius and they're some kind of lowlife scum. Sheesh, get a grip, will you.

A few days ago I was watching Louis Theroux in San Quentin Prison. It's an interesting show where one of the returning themes is that many of the seasoned criminals described the life outside prison as a slave existence where they refused to be part of. So after release they just continued their criminal high-life until caught again and send back to prison. Something they didn't really mind as they said that in prison at least you've your 'hood watching your back, a sense of identity, strength and order. They basically seemed to think it was all worth it, although I'm sure not everybody thought the same about that.

There's a larger point to the above story in relation to the thread and everything we discussed so far but I'm not going to drag it out for you. I can only advice not to drown it in any superior/inferior complexity.

Who said he [Mikiel] was trying to contradict anyone? That would be you. Why don't you just stick to what he actually said?

Your really can read the following list without seeing it as attempted contrast with the 'egocentric' posts made before him?

- usual stereotypes ... of ubiquitous "slavedom" of the egocentric "take"
- the egoc *strategy* for creating a utopian world. The latter is impossible.
- Ego, as present in all posts here can not create a utopian community
- my contribution to the "slavedom" of the egocentric perspective on community here...
- the required egoic strategy and all.
- Again, slavedom is the the state of egoic ignorance.
- My brother, the benefactor, already knows what ego-transcendence is
- he "made me" "First Trustee" of the trust, knowing that I was liberated from ego and having read my several essays on intentional community

Why don't you stick with what's being said, in combination with the topic of the thread and try to think for a minute instead of drifting on your emotional indignation.

Let's see, didn't you write: But as a wheelchair guy with a moderate bag of money he naturally needed a builder to make the most of it and manage the estate for all practical purposes. How handy to find a flipped out stonemason basically looking to be taken for a ride.

Do you really want to deny the cynical motive you are ascribing to him? Looks like I know exactly what I'm reading but you don't know what the hell you're writing.

Okay, I admit the "flipped out" remark could be classified as cynical. But you missed the sober reality that cannot be pushed away here: there was, unless crucial details were left out, clearly a need at play. I don't condemn it, just remark it. The taken for a ride phrasing was a bad pun perhaps but this is how things work and its okay as long as it's being done aware of it happening.

Selfless it's not but I don't believe in total selflessness or egoless behavior in these matters. It doesn't exist in my view. So my critique is not about an ego being in play, it's about trying to cover it up with falsehoods. Any mistaken belief in ego is just as foolish as the mistaken belief in selflessness when we're dealing with our position in the world.

[sue hindmarsh]

A fool and his money are easily parted.

There are no two ways about it; Mikiel used his proclaimed belief in his “selflessness” to hustle the wheelchair-guy's money from him. An act, which in itself is pretty low by most standards, but then made even lower by its telling by Mikiel, for in telling it he is celebrating his low act; oblivious that it categorically shows him to be bereft of rational morals.

The theme of this thread is about how not to be taken for a sucker by people like Mikiel. Independence and rationality are the two main thrusts - both of which Mikiel has shown himself to be blind to, for he called his sect’s compound the “Center for Conscious Unity”, and bragged about his penchant for uniting with women. Neither of those are examples of independence and rationality – but he does, though I’m sure without meaning to, show that the establishment of a sect is built completely upon amoral behaviour – but then, how could it not be!.

[Tomas]

.


-Grizzly Adams-
skipair - I live in a tent and have everything I own in my backpack.

-tomas-
Don't tell Ryan where you set up shop :-(




-Morning Commute-
I have a two hour bus ride into the city

-tomas-
Get on the bus!




-Busy Beaver-
to work (I park cars at an airport),

-tomas-
A most honorable line of work. Thank you, sir. I'll tip extra next time I'm due out of town.




-Vegan Vampire-
and I eat mostly peanutbutter sandwiches and raw broccoli,

-tomas-
Please splurge on the healthy variety of pb's...

Raw broccoli..? Not my bag.




-Caffeine Fiend-
though I have picked up a minor addiction to starbucks food (for whatever reason),

-tomas-
That's one place I've managed to avoid :-|




-Frugal Man-
so my expenses I relatively small.

-tomas-
Good man!




-Lover Boy-
My addiction to women is still alive,

-tomas-
Heterosexual prowess is a godly trait to maintain :-)




-Adam pleases Eve-
though not in the form of the male-provider role I used to play.

-tomas-
Past histories prepare one for the Now.




-The Natural Man-
Even outside of the rat race, by staying in the male-lover role I still get my sex-chem fix and my esteem is still partially dependent on what women think of me.

-tomas-
And, what's wrong with that?




-The Relaxor-
It drives me nuts, and yet part of me still loves it.

-tomas-
You have it until your male menopause sets in. Ages vary.




-Man's Man-
I don't know whether it's something I need to do and "get out of my system",

-tomas-
You'll have to sort this one out.




-Escape Artist-
or to run away from,

-tomas-
Naw, not your style.




-Cool Hand Luke-
or to just quit cold turkey while facing it.

-tomas-
Search yourself.




-Skip-
Thoughts?

-tomas-
Your intellectual equal is out there.

However, she's not in the one-night-stand crowd.

When you least expect it, she will appear.





.

[mikiel]

If the violence of hate crimes as expressed in words was against the law both Diebert and Sue would be facing charges for violent defamation of character and facing prizon terms. They are both obviously "bitches" of the alpha male trio who instigated this philosophical hate cult of a website.

I'll give a little true testimony here to conect the dots for these hate-mongering moralists who presume to judge and condemn me for what is actually a perfect gift from "The Universe" in honor of the awakening of the one once known as Michael Mooney, whose identity was "lost at sea, as a selfless and loving servant of the Cosmic One was born of the Spirit.... 14 yrs ago.

(How can he say that of "himself?" you are asking. Cuz there is no "self" here but God-as-mikiel, and one committed to radical honesty does not subscribe to the false humility indoctrinated into all egic robots... to avoid "bragging" at all costs. See, without a "self" "bragging is impossible, but you will not grok that until... )

I had facilitated several seminars on intentional community, and the Trust benefactor knew of them and my locally published essays on the subject. He also had heard (word of mouth... I do not advertise) about my meditation and dialogue circles as an awakened teacher. (Radical honesty also demands Truth telling around the subject of "enlightenment.")

As it turned out he had also had a transformational breakthrough beyond "personal identity" *and* he was a practicioner of radical honesty *and* had studied the Greater Mysteries of the Great Pyramid, including two of my three manuscripts on the subject.
He also just happened to have an 80 acre parcel of undeveloped land, forest and meadows, and a passionate intention to create an intentional community on it, in harmony with Nature and Spiritual Consciosness, and in perfect synch with what I had been teaching on all the above for years.

It doesn't take a "genius" to see the perfect synchronicity in this situation. It was absolutely obvious to both of us that our partnership in creating this community was, in the best sense, "meant to be." (In religious terms, it was clearly "the will of God", and as both of us had experienced surrender of the "personal will" into the Grace of Divine union it was perfectly natural for this Trust to manifest with mikiel as First Trustee.

We spent about $8000 on a lawyer who specalized in intentional community land trust legal documents, became one....
"and the rest is history."

Those who condem me and this well blessed community (in service to Truth, Love, and Spiritual/Natural harmony) can "go straight to hell." (No journey, really!) Their hate has already created a living hell for themselves, as self evident in their hateful condemnation projected onto me and our truly God-given gift.

Just so you all know my truth of the situation here.

mikiel

[sue hindmarsh]

Mikiel,

Your above wallowing tirade comes about because you cannot tolerate being questioned. If Diebert and I had not questioned you, but instead joined you in your little fantasy, you would have welcomed us with open arms. But question we did, for it is the responsibility of any rational human to do so.

No wonder that Sam found Diebert's post to you disconcerting. He is 'you' in so many ways, for neither you nor he wants to face the reality of your lives, whereas Diebert and I do. And it is this distinction that causes the clash between the likes of the pair of you with Diebert and myself.

(Diebert: Apologies for speaking for you – but I’m sure you’ll pull me up if we do not accord on this matter.)

[mikiel]

Your above wallowing tirade comes about because you cannot tolerate being questioned. If Diebert and I had not questioned you, but instead joined you in your little fantasy, you would have welcomed us with open arms. But question we did, for it is the responsibility of any rational human to do so.

Dear Ms. Logic,
I welcome sincere questioning. What part my posts above do you consider "fantasy," and based on what information about the actual reality of the situation?
Doesn't a rational criticism require some actual information to expose the lie of the fantasy and bring forth the Truth of the matter, if this is the "resonsibility" you take on in this situation?
mikiel

[samadhi]

Diebert,

sam: You didn't like what he posted, fine. But then you try to make him wrong for that. Why not just say you didn't like it because of x, y or z instead of trying to make it about his supposed hyprocrisy? You make up some character flaw and try to pin it on him when all he was doing was describing a bit of his life.

Diebert: I didn't like it because of his hypocrisy and flaws in character that the post illustrated, which I all pointed out.

No, you didn't. You imagined them and then illustrated your imagination. All he did was offer a description of how his community came about.

Your supposed problem with this tells a lot about yourself. Actually this need to expose yourself with your hopeless arguments is the very thing tempting me to keep it going.

I wanted to address your hostility. I hope that does tell you something about me.

Diebert: The fact I still talk to you is an act beyond generosity. It's like going to San Quentin prison with a bucket of roses to visit Level 4.Again with your ego.

sam: What the hell is with you? Don't talk to me if you don't want to talk to me but don't say it's MY problem! It's YOUR f*****g problem. I'm perfectly fine talking to whoever I wish and getting whatever response they feel like. But just because I have a point to share doesn't mean I'm some kind of brilliant genius and they're some kind of lowlife scum. Sheesh, get a grip, will you.

Diebert: There's a larger point to the above story in relation to the thread and everything we discussed so far but I'm not going to drag it out for you. I can only advice not to drown it in any superior/inferior complexity.

I was objecting to your condescencion, maybe you missed it.

sam: Who said he [Mikiel] was trying to contradict anyone? That would be you. Why don't you just stick to what he actually said?

Diebert: Your really can read the following list without seeing it as attempted contrast with the 'egocentric' posts made before him?

Sorry, I don't see it. He gave us a description of how his community came about. You want to portray his description in terms of some kind of character flaw you claim to have a unique insight of. I questioned that.

Why don't you stick with what's being said, in combination with the topic of the thread and try to think for a minute instead of drifting on your emotional indignation.

I questioned your hostility and where it was coming from, given his benign description of how his community came into being. And you think I am overreacting?

sam: Let's see, didn't you write: But as a wheelchair guy with a moderate bag of money he naturally needed a builder to make the most of it and manage the estate for all practical purposes. How handy to find a flipped out stonemason basically looking to be taken for a ride.

Do you really want to deny the cynical motive you are ascribing to him? Looks like I know exactly what I'm reading but you don't know what the hell you're writing.

Diebert: Okay, I admit the "flipped out" remark could be classified as cynical. But you missed the sober reality that cannot be pushed away here: there was, unless crucial details were left out, clearly a need at play. I don't condemn it, just remark it.

Of course you condemned it, and with a certain degree of vehemence! Why do you think I challenged you on it?

The taken for a ride phrasing was a bad pun perhaps but this is how things work and its okay as long as it's being done aware of it happening.

Well, if you were so aware of it, why did you pretend that you didn't do it?

Selfless it's not but I don't believe in total selflessness or egoless behavior in these matters. It doesn't exist in my view.

Okay, not selfless we agree on. How about hostile?

So my critique is not about an ego being in play, it's about trying to cover it up with falsehoods. Any mistaken belief in ego is just as foolish as the mistaken belief in selflessness when we're dealing with our position in the world.

He told his story, you see it as a cynical cover-up. All I'm saying is, you got nothing to back that up but prejudice. It's simply not in the words.



Sue,

There are no two ways about it; Mikiel used his proclaimed belief in his “selflessness” to hustle the wheelchair-guy's money from him.

No two ways about it? Really? Why is that?

An act, which in itself is pretty low by most standards, but then made even lower by its telling by Mikiel, for in telling it he is celebrating his low act; oblivious that it categorically shows him to be bereft of rational morals.

Yikes. The piranha are feeding!

The theme of this thread is about how not to be taken for a sucker by people like Mikiel. Independence and rationality are the two main thrusts - both of which Mikiel has shown himself to be blind to, for he called his sect’s compound the “Center for Conscious Unity”, and bragged about his penchant for uniting with women. Neither of those are examples of independence and rationality – but he does, though I’m sure without meaning to, show that the establishment of a sect is built completely upon amoral behaviour – but then, how could it not be!.

Sue, get a grip! He isn't the devil walking amongst us, although your strong reaction is an indication that finding the devil is one way you promote your own self-image.

[BMcGilly07]

I've been working toward this since 1998.

I'm not so sure, Dave, that you have several years, but I guess I read too much scary stuff.

What do you mean by that? Imminent war / famine / doomsday scenarios? Or do you mean that there's a decreasing availability in the Adirondacks?

[BMcGilly07]

I finally got around to reading this thread. What a trip!...

Tell me, mikiel, is your friend para- or quadriplegic? Do you take care of him? Do you change his diapers, do you do the "spinning"? Do you shower him, put on his catheter? I mean, if he needs it, it's the least you could do for your generous land grant.

[Iolaus]

B,

What do you mean by that? Imminent war / famine / doomsday scenarios? Or do you mean that there's a decreasing availability in the Adirondacks?

Well, the former. My place is not in the adirondacks, but in appalachia.

[BMcGilly07]

In a few year's time I would be more than happy to go in on a multi-acre land purchase in the Adirondacks, sizable enough so as not to necessarily see any other partners for months (~100 acres). However I recently watched a documentary on the Adirondacks on the local PBS and it seems that most of the people who went up there to enter the simple farming life in the early 1900's had left due to the poor quality soil and harsh winters.

I think that what slavedom and freedom come down to is humility. It all revolves around whether or not one is willing to stop worrying about the future (food, shelter) and stop worrying about your past (family, friends). Something about God dressing the lilies of the fields and feeding the birds of the sky.

I am not presently strong enough to do so.

note: deleted 2 unnecessary statements.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

(Diebert: Apologies for speaking for you – but I’m sure you’ll pull me up if we do not accord on this matter.)

No problem. After all, I did suggest Sam to sue me, so I deserve this. [barf!]

Before people will start to imagine an alliance of some kind, I don't agree with the idea of people getting 'suckered' by Mikiel. Not in the sense of intentional deceit. He doesn't seem to be the type, I see some kind of innocence, mostly unawareness of the traps he keeps digging for his own mind.

Without intending it he did supply a way out of financial slavedom: founding a cult of some kind. What if Kevin would start teaching more on his idea of independent estates based on rationality. Give some workshops, spread the ideas around, profiling himself as the Main Man. This way he will run into benefactors sooner or later, as many rich people are literary waiting for a worthy cause to give their money to.

And indeed: with most gifts there comes a demand, a share, an expectation attached. Unspoken or not: it's rarely absent. The law of exchange is real.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

It doesn't take a "genius" to see the perfect synchronicity in this situation. It was absolutely obvious to both of us that our partnership in creating this community was, in the best sense, "meant to be." (In religious terms, it was clearly "the will of God", and as both of us had experienced surrender of the "personal will" into the Grace of Divine union it was perfectly natural for this Trust to manifest with mikiel as First Trustee.

Sure, such things happen all the time. Another guy I knew won the lottery and thanked Allah. Get off your high horse and stop thinking it's a special sign proving you have done something ego-less. That's the sin I was talking about, not your great project which you keep on defending as if it was your self but nobody even tried to attack.

[samadhi]

mikiel: It doesn't take a "genius" to see the perfect synchronicity in this situation.

Diebert: Sure, such things happen all the time. Another guy I knew won the lottery and thanked Allah. Get off your high horse and stop thinking it's a special sign proving you have done something ego-less.

Ah, so this is the bug up your ass. Hmm, there are three times in my life where I recognize the occurrence of divine intervention. Do you really think I should let you tell me what my experience means to me? Why would I do that? Why would you let anyone do that to you?

[brokenhead]

B,

What do you mean by that? Imminent war / famine / doomsday scenarios? Or do you mean that there's a decreasing availability in the Adirondacks?

Well, the former. My place is not in the adirondacks, but in appalachia.

Iolaus-
I kind of lost the thread of your exchange here. Are you saying you have a place in Appalachia?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

mikiel: It doesn't take a "genius" to see the perfect synchronicity in this situation.

Diebert: Sure, such things happen all the time. Another guy I knew won the lottery and thanked Allah. Get off your high horse and stop thinking it's a special sign proving you have done something ego-less.

Ah, so this is the bug up your ass. Hmm, there are three times in my life where I recognize the occurrence of divine intervention. Do you really think I should let you tell me what my experience means to me? Why would I do that? Why would you let anyone do that to you?

Only three times? Man, I could write pages!

But the bug is about a perceived slamming of all contributions of the thread as "egoistic strategies" and as such laying out a "selfless" approach, justifying that so far by outlining some great luck

Although as I already stated this type of luck occurs more than one would think. I've seen people upon close getting funding for all kinds of things, just a matter of hanging out with the right crowd and talking the right talk. It doesn't matter if the goal was community, a sex club, , a church, a cult, a commercial investment, paying back loans, buying a pet crocodile, whatever. It's about having a vision, a goal and doing what is needed to get other people or the bank believe as well. To claim some special 'different' approach here is not only arrogant but surprisingly deluded.

[brokenhead]

It's about having a vision, a goal and doing what is needed to get other people or the bank believe as well. To claim some special 'different' approach here is not only arrogant but surprisingly deluded.

Now you tell me!

For thirty years I've been praying to win the lottery. Thirty years! And so far, bubkes! I light candles, I say rosaries, I go to Mass four times every Sunday, I help little old ladies across the street! Nothing! Not a dime! Until last week, I got so upset and fed up with never winning a cent, I fell to my knees in fury and shouted at God, "Why?!! Why?!! I've been begging you for years!!! And still I have not won the lottery!!!! Why, oh Lord???" Suddenly, a bright light shone down from the sky, and I heard a deep, powerful voice say: "Brokenhead, my son--- try buying a ticket...!"

[samadhi]

Diebert,

But the bug is about a perceived slamming of all contributions of the thread as "egoistic strategies" and as such laying out a "selfless" approach, justifying that so far by outlining some great luck

I think his point was that egoic strategies, however well-intentioned, have a basic flaw at their heart; i.e. they can never be selfless. That is not a "slamming" of egoic strategies but a recognition of their limitations. That being said, if you want to employ an egoic strategy, I'm sure mikiel would not object at all. The result will simply be limited by the strategy.

His approach was not to make a strategy for creating a community. The egoless state does not follow strategies but prajna, the heart-wisdom. From the standpoint of ego, prajna will always appears as pure luck. That doesn't mean the ego should take it as advice, i.e. luck as strategy. That isn't what prajna is, which is what you seem to believe he is implying. He isn't.

Although as I already stated this type of luck occurs more than one would think. I've seen people upon close getting funding for all kinds of things, just a matter of hanging out with the right crowd and talking the right talk. It doesn't matter if the goal was community, a sex club, , a church, a cult, a commercial investment, paying back loans, buying a pet crocodile, whatever.

Luck is luck and many people experience it. But you can't make luck into a strategy.

It's about having a vision, a goal and doing what is needed to get other people or the bank believe as well. To claim some special 'different' approach here is not only arrogant but surprisingly deluded.

He did have a vision; that's the whole point. You want to discount his vision based on your interpretation of his "luck." He wasn't preaching luck which is your ego trying to wrap itself around prajna. Some things are not explainable to the ego. I have had that experience and you say you've had it too. So why can't you accept that he can have it as well?

[brokenhead]

I think his point was that egoic strategies, however well-intentioned, have a basic flaw at their heart; i.e. they can never be selfless. That is not a "slamming" of egoic strategies but a recognition of their limitations. That being said, if you want to employ an egoic strategy, I'm sure mikiel would not object at all. The result will simply be limited by the strategy.

His approach was not to make a strategy for creating a community. The egoless state does not follow strategies but prajna, the heart-wisdom. From the standpoint of ego, prajna will always appears as pure luck. That doesn't mean the ego should take it as advice, i.e. luck as strategy. That isn't what prajna is, which is what you seem to believe he is implying. He isn't.

I agree that egoic strategies can never be selfless, sam. This is implicit in the term "egoic." You go on to imply that no strategy can be selfless by stating "the egoless state does not follow strategies." Therefore, is it not unreasonable to conclude that all strategies are egoic in nature? I have trouble with that. This has been discussed at length at GF, I know. Sue Hindmarsh may scoff at the notion of the anahata (heart) chakra, but it has been my experience that once this center is activated, vivfied, opened, or cleansed (whichever terminology suits the case), you are from then on aware of its existence and the insight it brings to you. If this is the beginning of prajna (I am not very familiar with Buddhist terminology), then perhaps "strategies" can indeed be selfless. You go on to say, quite rightly, IMO, that relying on luck cannot be one's strategy. If you cultivate prajna, you understand that behaving in a selfless manner, that is, acting in ways that positively benefit others, generates what is often called "luck" by an obsever. There is a saying that "no good deed goes unpunished." Heart-wisdom understands why this is so: you have disturbed things in a positive direction, things respond by pushing back. It appears negative, but in reality, the deed is done; the "punishment" is an illusion ("My burden is light"), the selfless deed lives on.

I think what I am saying is that the word "strategy" seems to pertain to something local and specific, a problem; if, on the other hand, one cultivates prajna, one behaves in an egoless way as a lifestyle, enduring the "punishments" brought on by good deeds and affecting those around in a positive manner. This inevitably reflects back. "What goes around, comes around."

So my question to you, sam, is do you think random acts of kindness work? I believe they do. Instead of strategy, modus operandi might be a better term.

[samadhi]

broken,

I agree that egoic strategies can never be selfless, sam. This is implicit in the term "egoic." You go on to imply that no strategy can be selfless by stating "the egoless state does not follow strategies." Therefore, is it not unreasonable to conclude that all strategies are egoic in nature?

Sure. Strategizing is what the ego does; it has an agenda and tries to figure out how to fulfill it.

I have trouble with that. This has been discussed at length at GF, I know. Sue Hindmarsh may scoff at the notion of the anahata (heart) chakra, but it has been my experience that once this center is activated, vivfied, opened, or cleansed (whichever terminology suits the case), you are from then on aware of its existence and the insight it brings to you. If this is the beginning of prajna (I am not very familiar with Buddhist terminology), then perhaps "strategies" can indeed be selfless.

Well, I wouldn't call cleansing the heart chakra a strategy. Surrender is about letting go of strategy.

You go on to say, quite rightly, IMO, that relying on luck cannot be one's strategy. If you cultivate prajna, you understand that behaving in a selfless manner, that is, acting in ways that positively benefit others, generates what is often called "luck" by an obsever.

Trying to behave in a selfless manner is kind of a contradiction. I'm sure people try it; I mean after all, this is what religion has been teaching forever. But the problem with it is, which religion never acknowledges, is that it is essentially putting the cart before the horse, which is why it always fails in the end. You don't become selfless by behaving selflessly, you behave selflessly by becoming selfless. Egos try to imitate the behavior they seek to emulate but selfless behavior is not about imitation. Without being sourced in "no self", the stress of trying to be what one isn't inevitably leads to some manner of breakdown.

There is a saying that "no good deed goes unpunished." Heart-wisdom understands why this is so: you have disturbed things in a positive direction, things respond by pushing back. It appears negative, but in reality, the deed is done; the "punishment" is an illusion ("My burden is light"), the selfless deed lives on.

Selflessness doesn't look for a reward, the ego does. When it doesn't get it, it feels cheated and its behavior shows it.

I think what I am saying is that the word "strategy" seems to pertain to something local and specific, a problem; if, on the other hand, one cultivates prajna, one behaves in an egoless way as a lifestyle, enduring the "punishments" brought on by good deeds and affecting those around in a positive manner. This inevitably reflects back. "What goes around, comes around."

Agreed. Strategies revolve around problem-solving, prajna is about going with the flow.

So my question to you, sam, is do you think random acts of kindness work? I believe they do. Instead of strategy, modus operandi might be a better term.

Whatever you want to try is fine. The ego will always try something. Surrender happens however when you finally realize that no matter what or how hard you try, it isn't enough. Because it isn't your effort that gets you there; it is your realization.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

His approach was not to make a strategy for creating a community. The egoless state does not follow strategies but prajna, the heart-wisdom.

Here's Mikiel's strategy over the years as far as I could read it:

-"facilitated several seminars on intentional community"
-locally publishing "essays on intentional community"
-organizing "meditation and dialogue circles as an awakened teacher"
-those circles set up "on all the several properties where I rented".
-being known as having "leadership in that realm." [creating communities]

If you're involved in this stuff over a period, one bounds to run in to some opportunity. That's how things work. Conscious or subconscious planning or homing into, it doesn't matter. And again, I don't oppose it as such, I just find it laughable to call it non-strategy as if there must be a written out "master-plan" before it can be called strategy, as if one has to start calculating numbers before ego gets involved. Hah!

Luck is luck and many people experience it. But you can't make luck into a strategy.

No, but I wasn't making it into something else - Mikiel did. For him it became a 'sign'. And it's a sign alright - a sign of his involvement and desire all along. He was "buying lottery tickets" quite loyally, see the list above. Why making it into something more special or 'divine' than it really is? It's all down to earth stuff, really.

He did have a vision; that's the whole point. You want to discount his vision based on your interpretation of his "luck." He wasn't preaching luck which is your ego trying to wrap itself around prajna. Some things are not explainable to the ego. I have had that experience and you say you've had it too. So why can't you accept that he can have it as well?

It's not really my interpretation, but Mikiel's: "creating this community was, in the best sense, "meant to be." (In religious terms, it was clearly "the will of God", and as both of us had experienced surrender of the "personal will" into the Grace of Divine union it was perfectly natural for this Trust to manifest with mikiel as First Trustee."

So he ran into good fortune, who knows which angels or demons to thank, or which contracts were signed in whose blood. It doesn't matter - it's just no particular sign of liberation or understanding. It's no particular better strategy, not a bad one either but only disguised behind a facade in this case.

It seems you haven't gotten a clue yet what I'm trying to point at. Better leave it at that, some things are not explainable indeed to everyone at all times.

[Carl G]

Strategizing is what the ego does; it has an agenda and tries to figure out how to fulfill it.

Got it, boss.

Surrender

...is an agenda.

is about letting go of strategy.

That is a strategy.

Trying to behave in a selfless manner is kind of a contradiction. I'm sure people try it; I mean after all, this is what religion has been teaching forever.

You knock trying but have you ever tried it?

What, you think being selfless being comes naturally?

But the problem with it is, which religion never acknowledges, is that it is essentially putting the cart before the horse, which is why it always fails in the end.

You blame trying for the failure of persons to behave in a selfless manner?

You don't become selfless by behaving selflessly, you behave selflessly by becoming selfless.

These can be the same, or not. You are not behaving specifically enough.

Egos try to imitate the behavior they seek to emulate but selfless behavior is not about imitation.

Are egos the only operators within people?

Without being sourced in "no self", the stress of trying to be what one isn't inevitably leads to some manner of breakdown.

This is your story and you are welcome to it. Except, there is no you or your. Okay, it's one of God's stories and He's welcome to it. Wait, there can be no He, either. It's one of cause and effect's stories...

[Iolaus]

Samadhi

Trying to behave in a selfless manner is kind of a contradiction. I'm sure people try it; I mean after all, this is what religion has been teaching forever. But the problem with it is, which religion never acknowledges, is that it is essentially putting the cart before the horse, which is why it always fails in the end. You don't become selfless by behaving selflessly, you behave selflessly by becoming selfless. Egos try to imitate the behavior they seek to emulate but selfless behavior is not about imitation. Without being sourced in "no self", the stress of trying to be what one isn't inevitably leads to some manner of breakdown.

Yes!!! This is the big misunderstanding, and you were recently talking to one of the guys here about their attempts to be without desire or attachments via denial/asceticism. I just a few minutes ago said on another thread:

"In Christianity, too, there are desirable states, but the Church cannot transmit them, and resorts to pretenses of prayers over chalices of wine, and men who claim authority over the keys of heaven."

But you have misunderstood a couple of Brokenhead's points.

Brokenhead,

So my question to you, sam, is do you think random acts of kindness work? I believe they do. Instead of strategy, modus operandi might be a better term.

Of course they do, and this I fervently hope is the next wave of folk wisdom for the masses - we all affect the human situation with our thoughts, our being. We need to take responsibility for that. We are not the isolated systems we had thought and indulging in negativity (most TV programs) brings the vibe down.

But of course, you mustn't perform those acts as a strategy! : D

It has to come natural.

[Iolaus]

Oh, yes, Brokenhead, I have a place in Appalachia.