MMA, UFC, Chael Sonnen, Jon Jones, Green Anarchy, Taoism

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Buddhism, Tigers, Michael Moore etc.

Ok, so, I had a dream that I was a tiger and so was the Dalai Lama, and so was Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche.

Kind of in the "Animal Farm Sense" you know? Like the book by George Orwell. "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others?" 10 times out of 10 the pigs and the dogs are going to exercise power over say, the horses.

So I have this Spirit Animal, aspect, where in dreams I am a tiger or a lion. Tigers and Lions are remarkably simmilar, the difference being lions are more social, wheras tigers are loners. Lions are social in the sense of forming coalitions for the sake of various violent activities like hunting and fighting. So they are really not so social as gregarious herd animals like zebras, or wildebeest.

So in the natural scheme of things, big predators like lions and tigers prey on the herd animals. So to a herd animal, lions and tigers are the enemy.

That doesn't however imply that all tigers are friends with each other. Its actually the reverse. All tigers are enemies. Recent studdies have shown that lions actually team up mainly for protection against other lions and actually not to increase hunting success.

So this is my totem. Everyone has a different totem, but on the surface we all look alike. Except, I think Tigers can recognze each other, maybe others can recognize tigers too. Everyone is a bit psychic after all.

But I definately think tigers can reconize each other. Its a negative reaction. Its not like "Hey, you are a Tiger just like me, cool!" No. Its more, like "Fuck, this person is dangerous."

There is some projection that goes on. But where do these qualities come from that we project onto others? They come from within, so obviously they are qualities we have.

So let me add another dynamic here. We aren't literally, wild animals living on the Serengeti or in the jungle. We are people, but in a sense we are wild animals hunting and eating each other. There is also kind of a sexual aspect, like BDSM, which stands for "Bondage Discipline, Sadism and Masochism." So some people are antelopes and actually want to be preyed on by people who are lions/tigers. It gets them off.

So in a way tigers can get along a lot better with herd people than with each other. Two male or two female tigers will always fight. Lions, can co-operate for the purpose of preying on others. But lions in the outgroup are enemies of lions in their respective in group.

So the point is Tibetan Lamas, are human lions/tigers. They are predators. All Aristocrats are savages. That's what Aristocracy is. Its Brutal Barbarians taking over and organizing weaker people to aggrandize themselves. Its organizing people below you into a machine that concentrates power and siphons wealth to your social class at the top.

So in the history of Tibet you have all these factions of Lamas, fighting and assasinating each other. That's just like prides of lions fighting over territory.

I can see all this for what it is because I am a lion too. I am not a herd animal that wants to get off by being abused, while tricking myself into thinking something else is going on. That's not my thing.

But I haven't always been clear on who I am. Its taken a while for me to acknowledge these messages from my unconscious that I am a predator. Mostly I have just projected this predator aspect onto others in authority. The thing about projection though, that many people seem to miss, is that its often accurate, even though it eventually points back to yourself.

Its not like I am wrong, about these Gurus being human predators. I am right. Its just that I know because I am one myself. Which brings me to my next point.

The Tibetans have this institution of Tulku Which, is the idea that lamas keep reincarnating over and over again. They could be born as a peasant and then some other Lamas will "recognize" them and raise them to be a Lama.

So lets just say this is true and not bullshit, which of course is dubious because is an Arisocrat living in luxury really a Boddhistava? It would appear to be preposterous, but maybe the reincarnation aspect is true.

So concievably, you could have a kid, who was an Aristocrat in a former life, a real tyrant, getting born into a peasant family. So what if these bickering lamas, never found the kid? What if for political reasons, they picked this other kid and made him a lama?

So you would have this Lama growing up as a peasant. What would he be like? If he had his past life memories even partially intact, giving him a sense of identity that was incongrous with his humble state, I would think he would be pretty pissed off. He would also begin to identify with his fellow peasants, being one himself now, and he would really resent their treatement at the hands of their overlords.

So, He'd probably become a subversive, maybe even a revolutionary champion of the "comon man" instead of a predator of the common man, which he would be had he been born into a higher station in life.

But deep down he would be a predator. And the fact that he wants to "fight" for the common people would reval his predatory nature. Because really, wild herd animals don't hunt their predators down. Domestic herd animals even revere and submit to their human predators. The most they will do is complain of their treatement, if it becomes especially harsh and degrading. That's the essence of a peasant. They are sychophants to authority figures.

I see these qualities in my self and as I recently watched Michael Moore's "Roger and me" I saw them in him as well. He felt like a misfit growing up, among factory workers, saw that occupation as beneath him from a young age, yet made a career out of attacking the factory owning Oligarchs. He's smug, perhaps even narcissistic, as he stars in his own movie hunting down, mega rich CEO Roger Smith, presumabley to confront him about laying off 30,000 factory workers.

He seems to relish barging in on Rich Country Clubbers and asking them embarassing questions. How altruistic are his motives really? Does he just like to attack and ridicule people in power? A lot of it is pretty funny, but he does have that edge. He no doubt likes the adrenaline rush he gets from it, and the(self)righteous indignation.

And here is another thing I find about Muckraking journalism and Conspiracy theories: Most people don't give a shit. How do you really help the type of person that would work at a factory owned by a bunch of rich Oligarchs and bank your whole future on the dubious premise that these people will take care of you?

If its your lot in life to be a peasant, maybe you should just except it in the hope that things will be better for you in the next life.

There are two types of people that understand conspiracies. There are people expressing moral outrage that they exist, and the other type are the conspirators themselves. There is really only one type. People that can figure them out.

If you can see through propoganda, you have the potential to be a propagandist yourself.

No comments:

Post a Comment