Will an Everchanging peg Fit into the Neverchanging Hole?

The other day I was talking to Dr. Yuen about a certain type of people—the ones who think ‘they’ve seen it all’,  he called them (with no judgmental attachment).

“Oh yea”, I agreed, “the ones who try to fit the Yuen Method into something they already know, as opposed to  those who leave room for something new to come along.” (I like to explore the effects of human mindsets.)

Pause for exploration.

And now the question:  What type of person, do you think, learns something new faster?  The one who thinks he’s* seen it all, or the one who thinks there might be something new to see?  The one who thinks he has been there and done everything, or the one who knows there is always more to experience? The one who tries to fit the everchanging peg into the neverchanging hole or …..Time’s up!

If we try to fit the Yuen Method into the reality we’ve already structured for ourselves, a large part of its infinite potential is lost from the get-go.

Why can’t it be OK not to know everything about life?  What if someone else knows something more about it than we do?  We aren’t going to lose face or die, or lose the ability to think for ourselves, are we?…..Oh well, enough said.

I find that Dr. Yuen’s technique constantly changes and evolves, but that’s thanks to Dr. Yuen.   I truly believe that if it weren’t for his fearless, nonjudgmental approach to limitless existence that the whole method  would stop and become exactly like a religion.

The first thing many of us do, consciously or unconsciously, when exposed to the Yuen Method is try to peg it—make it fit with what we already know.  It’s kind of a logical mind thing or even a security issue we have with boundary-less  states of existence.   Sad to say, most of us want our boundaries like a baby wants a pacifier.

Dr. Yuen’s approach to life , on the other hand, is limitless and, therefore, much more freaking fearless.  Thank goodness, too.  It’s a dirty job, but someone’s gotta do it—be nonjudgmental and fearless enough to connect with any and all of the answers out there.

Somebody has to be OK with not boxing up chunks of infinity. Someone has to be open to everchanging questions, everchanging answers and the truth of infinite human potential, even if most of us can’t stand to watch—even if 99.999% of us want to put a box around life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness— not to mention our afterlife benefits.

Now that I’ve mentioned the afterlife, religions are not content to box up life. They get quite a kick out of boxing up the afterlife, too.  OK, OK, sometimes the box is bigger, as in the case of Snake Handlers, sometimes it’s smaller, as in the case of Unitarians, but a box is still a box.

Let’s face it. Many of those dudes who head up religions have our afterlives in a ludicrously tiny box that we can only access by following ludicrous rules!  I’m sorry, but there are not 72 virgins awaiting anyone in the afterlife.

Why do human beings constantly gravitate towards boxed infinity and make a home for themselves in some infinitesimal part of  it?  Is it the nesting urge?  We certainly defend our philosophical boxes as if our lives depended on it.

Infinity is not meant to live inside anybody’s box.  If you want sacrilege—there’s some for you!

The problem with Infinity is, it’s pretty much an impossible concept for our logical minds to deal with, and the logical mind wants logical answers.  Infinity just ain’t logical, but ((big but)) that’s where intuition comes in.

If we want to connect with all the answers for existence and beyond, we need to be able to access infinity.  If we want to access infinity, we need to use the Yuen Method. The fact that the method pushes us toward destructuring reality as we know it might make us feel shaky at first…at second….at third.  Should something new, however,  stop us in our push towards limitless potential?   Try to put the Yuen Method into the box you already know, people, and you’ll lose most of what’s available.  Let it be!  Just feel it.

Here’s some type of conclusion to my ramblings.  If we want to learn the Yuen Method faster, we open to the possibility that it is something new, something we’ve never run across before.   We shut our logical minds off, pretty much, especially when they start rampaging in a critical direction.

We let something new seep in, if no other reason, than just to see how it affects us.

Full speed ahead!

Laura signing off.

* he = he + she

The Art of Living by Dr. Kam Yuen

Living is an art, not a science. If it were a science, we would all be in more of a Bunsen Burner flame, boiling hot water centrifugal spin than we’re already in now!

Science, in spite of its flamboyant and glamorous status, creates more questions than answers. Do we need to ask and be asked more questions with no answers, or at best a few answers unrelated to the questions?

Usually science would have approximately one answer per thousand questions. For science to have two answers, or even a second one, it has to formulate an additional thousand questions. By the time, we get answers from science, we will be old and gray as I am now, if not already dead, which I am getting closer to.

Science’s answers are not truthful because it needs empirical evidence (whatever that means) before scientists consider anything to be true.

Gathering empirical data puts everyone to sleep, including those doing the gathering and interpreting. It is difficult for science to recognize the answer even if the answer has been staring it in the face for decades.

The answer is not the truth, because none of their answers are applicable in improving anyone’s lives, or anything else for that matter.

Does science really care to get to the truth?

It is difficult for science to get to the truth because it doesn’t have a sense of humor. The truth is funny!

Even stones in caves have changed by the time it takes science to form a single postulate let alone reach a conclusion. Carbon molecules would turn into diamonds by the time we get any useful answers from science for us to live by.

Every few years, scientific theory gets discarded and reversed until it contradicts its own previous theory. It is difficult for science to make up its mind— if it even has one.

Have I left anything out that would make us want to separate science from the art of living, as we wish to separate religion from government, so at least we can have a certain degree of life and liberty?

To improve the art of living, we can’t depend on science. It is really technology that improves the standard of living. Science gets the credit, just like medicine gets credit for health.

Under such premises, the art of living finds science to be as unreliable as any other human institution. One should not give science more credence than any other limited human system of experience.

The art of living seeks to unchain itself from the yoke of science, to be treated as equal to science, as all things are equal. There is a science and art of unparalleled development of intuition, unmatched by previous generations, that is setting a new baseline standard for future generations.

The art of living takes into consideration intuitive access to our physical, mental and spiritual being. It is only through intuition we get to the truth; logic can only point us in certain directions.

There are infinite possibilities for science to ponder, but it is up to our intuition to choose the exact one that is applicable to the given situation. Otherwise, we cannot siphon the truth out from the midst of untruths.

Art is intuition, and science is hard nosed logic with a sinus problem.

This new standard of intuition mentioned here can be taught and trained. It gives us the insight, without positive or negative judgment, to know untruths even though everyone, including all the king’s horses and men, support infinite untruths as the truth.

It is time for people to get off their high wooden horses and smell the aroma of wonton soup—not the chicken soup.

We have been led to believe that if everyone holds something to be true, because it does something only by accident, or from probability of random chance resolved one time, that we must accept it as always the truth.

This is the result of great marketing strategy. If we can get one person out of a hundred better accidentally, we can convince everyone that the other 99 would get better, or even have already gotten better.

There should be no argument about what is and what isn’t the truth!

Remember, if whatever has been said were true, it would resolve whatever ails us in our lives more times than one. However, if what has been preached didn’t resolve even one ailment of a person’s life, then there is no truth to what has been said, even though all the gurus are parroting the same thing.

Just because everyone is saying the same worded speech doesn’t make it the truth.

Does having passion, gratitude and intention make that much difference in our lives? Do we care to count the limited number of spiritual laws? Do we need to be motivated and inspired? Do we arrive to the New Age by going backward in time?

I will keep you all in suspense until my next or future article!

You know what is worse than listening to one parrot? It is having to listen to a whole bunch of them.

“I’ve been used,” I blurted out.

A couple days ago I had an interesting thought.  What if we’re all just pawns of our unconscious karma?  I mean, what if we’re all running around trying to resolve our ‘dirty deeds’ by creating more of the same?

No matter what your answer might be to this question, I think you’ve gotta agree with me on one thing:  Human beings Read more

Strong….Weak…..

Strong…..Weak… Strong…..Weak….Strong…0101010101010101010?!?!

Feeling the difference between strong and weak is not as simple as it looks. How do we tell the difference between Read more