Thursday, 11 July 2013

A Cooperative Meditation Group 

Is advertising for friends to join in a equality based meditation practice.

Equality for the compassion and openness to contribute with and for each other, An openness that is only possible without hierarchy. 

There is a meeting to begin where experience and practice for that meditation are discussed and agreed to by method of reaching a consensus.
Then the meditation followed by a chat about what happened during the meditation if people want to talk about it and a meeting about any business relevant to the group.

7:30pm on Thursdays at the Read and Black Umbrella, Clifton St, Adamsdown, Cardiff. It is on the corner of Clifton Street and Pearl Street and the nearest bus stop is Adamsdown, Tin Street (NE-bound)‎
contact  the clark elected by consensus in the original group that consisted if himself alone at,
 @sageofhappiness on twitter or E-mail

There are a lot of hierarchical movements which claim an authority on which they base their meditation classes they dictate meditation exercises to people or teach a particular forms of secular meditation practices. This group experience is deliberately designed to avoid the characteristics that arise from those classes. 

There will be a discussion to begin to decide what people what to do. This is done deliberately attempting to invoke openness and an egalitarian characteristic to the group. If a decision was made before hand and then that decision was cared out the potential to include everyone in the proses would be denied and the benefit of including everyone in that proses are far grater than the effort that it takes to include everybody in that proses.  

No personal attacks only observations of potential behaviours that may be helpful or unhelpful kind or unkind.

To maintain equality and openness accrediting a quote to anyone not in the room is seen as unhelpful because accrediting authority to others not present diminishes the relations with the people immediately in your company. Quoting is permitted i.e "be kind" which is different to "The Dali Lama says be kind" for example. Say it as yourself. 

Using an other as a superior or better or using a hypothetical person who is representing an end point or perfect is not helpful to sharing and openness because it diminishes the egalitarian relationship that would be advantageous to foster between those directly in front of you. 

Free, But Donations Are Welcome. 

Wednesday, 26 June 2013

Practicing Happiness as a Community

Written on 22 April 2013

I practice being happy. I find that it changes my perspective to one where the things that made me unhappy become ever less important. Kindness is another aspect of what I am doing as the things that make me unhappy become less important I can become kind to them and in doing so have my life simplify into a succinct understanding of being kind and what it is to be kind. 

Unfortunately group dynamic forces are cruel. On forming a group there automatically become a category of non group member that most of the world fit into and this diminishes the kindness that can be expressed and experience across this artificial divide. This artificial divide is strengthened by group myths and shared understandings, group identification and personal association and possibly most of all an internal group hierarchy that takes peoples efforts away from practising being kind and happy towards personal rivalries within the group and distorting peoples ability to be kind because of what there behaviour mite mean to there social standing. Where within a hierarchy those at the top find self interested people easier to control and this induces people in hierarchical groups to foster less kindness to each other and to the rest of the world in general. The very nature of hierarchy fosters a self interest that makes practicing being happy harder as it encourages the individual to be distracted by values that the group have that can be material or fanciful but in every way a hindrance to happiness that is only dependent on the efforts of the individual to practice being so. 

So would a culture that puts practicing happiness at its core be able to live without being affected by these group dynamics? That is what I want to find out by starting a community. 

Wednesday, 5 June 2013

The Integrated Epistemology

Originally written on the 15 June 2012

As any self righteousness arises in yourself apologise, be kind to the cause and the fact of the existence of the self righteousness and practice being happy about it. 

Self righteousness is caused by the a person perceiving themselves as being right. Being right is not a possibility, the mind and reality are 2 separate things the mind is contained within reality, and reality can not be contained within the mind so stop thinking you can or that you can get close or better than others or whatever, it can not happen. So stop thinking you are right you cant be and the most affective way to live this is to apologise for the ubiquitous mistakes that are the only thing the mind can do. apologising helps over come the self righteousness and create the calm kindness that makes the happiness easy. 

the kindness can be used by being kind to everything of yourself. Try being kind to the part of you that you dislike the most until your relation ship with it is only harmony. Then move on to the next part of yourself that has become your leased favourite and be kind to that until your relationship with it is one of harmony and continue until all that is left of you is kindness and harmony happiness is then easy in this situation. 

Meditation assists overcoming self righteousness and practising being kind and happy. 

it is posable to consider a world where nobody thinks they are right, in such a world how could a person then justify sending other people to do terrible things to others if they know that they can't be right about anything let alone that. how much better would the world be if everyone had the understanding that them being right is impossible? It would be impossible to be right about it this hypothetical situation but imagine how this idea can permeate the structure of society and alter it's politics irreconcilably. 

some mite say yes but, yes but nothing! if you cant do it, try harder. 

more than this is obfuscating. if there are questions be aware of the answer being that they are inherently wrong.

A New Political Ratio

Originally written on the 10 August 2012

A new political ratio that is no longer between left and right where someone might have believe some leftist and rightist policies.

An improved and clear political ratio would be between righteousness and kindness. Between righteousness that is characterised by intolerance of other views, things, people or anything that is deemed to be different to the right that originally inspired the righteousness. This courses in most instance self righteousness, pride and closed mindedness that leads to hatred and grater suffering. With kindness characterised by kindness itself which leads to generosity and unconditionality. 

If you are righteous about something then your kindness is compromised and you can count yourself in the same political category as the BNP and Joseph Stalin. 

Becoming kind may take a long time and hard work but it is worth the effort for you and for the world. 

Every individual who moves away from righteousness toads kindness strengthens the social influence of kindness. While every time a righteous person inspires righteousness in another the social influence of righteousness is strengthened. Some of the ways that righteousness can be inspired in another is by making them angry or proud. 

There are some social examples of the interaction between the two sides of the new politics. In favour of a movement towards kindness. If a righteous person attempts to inspire righteousness in another and that person can remain kind. When a kind person is kind to a righteous person enough that the kindness is past on and the righteous person becomes a kind person. On the other side in favour of righteousness. There can be a righteous person looking to annoy a kind person and succeeding thusly passing on the righteousness. The righteous person could make the other person angry by making them hate the righteous person or a third party or by making them hate themselves in all examples righteousness is contracted.

Using the Communist Party as an example. The Communist movements is a movement born out of anger against injustice but in recent history Communist parties from around the world have been responsible for some of the greatest acts of inhumanity and injustice ever known. So it is reasonable to ask what injustice might your anger induced you to commit?

All anger is against injustice have you ever tried being angry about something that you thought was right? And what is injustice but that which cannot be seen to be justifiable (and therefore wrong)? If it is not justice then it is injustice, if it is not right then it is wrong.

Have you tried being angry in an impersonal manner i.e. a manner that does not accredit blame to anyone or anything or does not think that it would be satisfied by someone or some group of people being punished? This is how anger creates justice and therefore injustice. Happiness and kindness can exist impersonally this is why it's a better state for being mindful as it allows for better awareness of all things and does not focus on specifics.

A statement pamphlet

Originally written on 16 July 2012

The following statement is not true there is no need to take it seriously. Consider the prospect that all the thoughts you have ever had were wrong and all that you could have would be wrong and the thoughts you are having right now are wrong. If this is difficult for you there is no obligation to continue reading this document. 

The reason the statement is not true is because when it is read it becomes thought and thoughts are not formed of truth. The truth is one thing and thoughts are another separate and different thing but this statement is also ridiculous as this is also formed out of thought. So the idea of truth in its self is a false idea. Some people mite in these circumstances look to draw a line in between different ideas to classify them as useful or deceptive or constructive and deconstructive. This would also be born out of ideas and be subject to the same falseness as everything els. 

There is no legitimacy to any thought or instinct. If instinct is born of evolution douse that make it right or true? It would be possible to say that any possible evolutionary origins prove its illegitimacy. evolution is not definitive, nothing ever can be definitive and evolution is also a proses it douse not stop or reach a zenith. 

There is not, but for the purposes of interaction with this idea that there is no correct idea there becomes an understanding(idea) that there are motivations within a person that claim a legitimacy of which the individual in question has not got a full control or understanding. In an attempt to delegitimise the reactions within the mind it is necessary to interact with them. This can be done by making the mind that is not immediate to the consciousness more immediate to the consciousness. By becoming more aware of the mind that the individual is immediately conscious of they would then become more conscious of the mind in general and of that which was previously not immediate to there consciousness. The more of the mind comes into the consciousness the more of the illegitimate perceptions are seen in full, and the more they are seen the less they will stand scrutiny. Generally ones the understanding that legitimacy is fraudulent in the same way that ideas are on being understood the misunderstandings of the previously non immediate to the consciousness vanish. To get to know the immediate consciousness and then the less immediate consciousness it is necessary to be kind to it to be understanding of and open to all of it similarly. The kindness augments awareness in a way that anger, hatred and frustration etc can not. 

In a culture where there is no legitimacy, How can wrong be justified? could a government have a mandate from which to interpret the will of the people? What could a government do when it is not possible to be right? How could a government be chosen? What would the law look like would it resemble a xeer type system?

The Two Succinct Circles

Originally written on 16 September 2012

Imagine two circles around which it is possible to travel in either direction.

 The first direction on the first circle starts with practising being happy and with the practice of being happy the psychological persuasions that hinder the practitioners happiness become seen as being wrong, that is that the psychological persuasions that hinder happiness are wrong. In doing this practice eventually all perspectives will be seen as wrong and all that will be left is the happiness that itself needs no justification.

 The first circle in the other direction starts with every possible thought is wrong and to integrate to this perspective it is necessary to be happy and kind as it is only possible to interact with the misconceptions of the mind in a full and integrating manner while being calm patient and kind with the thoughts that are recognised as being wrong. Intolerance of that which is wrong is based on the misconception tolerance and kindness never need any justification or conception. Intolerance of that which is wrong is a wrong view and is built on wrong views that lead to more wrong views by justifying views that are inherently wrong.

 The second circle in the first direction is the act of being angry, hateful, jealous, reviled or in any other way that could be described as stressed (basically that which is neither happy or kind). These psychological circumstances direct the thoughts of the mind creating emotionally charged beliefs and perceptions of these beliefs being transgressed i.e. In describing the stressed emotion that is being felt the cause or blame for its existence is regularly stated. Therefore the emotions that are described above as stressed require a right and a wrong to exist. The wrong with that is created is a wrong that is relative to the right and not a wrong that is inherent in the same way that emptiness is inherent in Buddhism. The conclusion is therefore that these emotions generate righteousness.

 The second circle in the other direction begins with righteousness. Righteousness provides excuses to be offended. There are hundreds of ways in which anybody can be offended i.e. If somebody has something that you want that could be described as envy for the purposes of this explanation that is a way of taking offence and the more traditional manner of disliking somebody's behaviour causes offence. Therefore a person having their understanding of rightness and non-universal wrongness compromised induces in their emotions that are neither happiness or kindness.