devin Posted August 10, 2019 Posted August 10, 2019 Speaking of showmanship, I was watching some card flourishing on TV last night, and, I tell ya, I wouldn't mind being able to add a little 'flourish' to my readings. Then again, I can't even bring myself to riffle my little darlings....
devin Posted August 10, 2019 Posted August 10, 2019 1 hour ago, Ruby Jewel said: I know what you mean by not wanting to riffle your cards. I don't like to bend my cards back and forth but it really isn't very difficult to learn this shuffle. You just let the edges slip off your thumbs. After this comes naturally to you, you can do this shuffle with barely bending the cards. It hasn't affected my cards at all and I have been doing this shuffle for years. You may have to cut and paste this....not sure. Anyway, it is worth learning and it doesn't take that long. Also, it is very fast. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFs3XJSA6vI Thanks! I'll be brave.
katrinka Posted August 10, 2019 Posted August 10, 2019 14 hours ago, Ruby Jewel said: Hi Katrinka.....things are as simple, as one is able to make them which is contingent upon how well one understands them. In other words, the ability to make something simple is the measure of understanding one has of a subject. I say this b/c your statement seems to imply that complexity assumes a superior understanding of a subject than does simplicity. (ie. "its more complex that that.") One does not really understand a subject until one is able to explain it in simple terms. You can convey a basic idea in simple terms, but saying " a circuit board connects electronic components using conductive tracks" doesn't enable a layman to look at a circuit board and see exactly what's at play, what the capacitors, resistors, etc. are doing (or even which is which) and certainly doesn't enable anyone to build a working one. The simple explanation is where you board the bus, if you so choose. Complexity is acquired bit by bit along the way. The simple explanation is enough for the casual observer. The person with the expertise knows the complexities. If he conveys it in simple terms, it's an explanation for outsiders, no more. 14 hours ago, Ruby Jewel said: Unfortunately, I'd have to channel Richard Feynman in order to explain the theory of existence and non existence in a way that is easily understood. I'm not sure if any of us on this forum really knows what the nature of reality is, and I am hardly inclined to try to explain it. I may be reprimanded for introducing such an enigmatic phenomena as what is real versus an illusion, in the first place. I confess I am merely using "bits and pieces" of a theory that is attributed to physics and I'm not a physicists....much as I would like to be. The nature of reality is anyone's guess, but since we were discussing it within a Buddhist framework, I posted a Buddhist link. For more explanation of reality - or rather realities - explained in a clear manner, there's this overlooked but essential book https://smile.amazon.com/Tara-Feminine-Divine-Bokar-Rinpoche/dp/1930164009 14 hours ago, Ruby Jewel said: It's reminds me of Little Black Sambo Urg. I'm outta here.
Raggydoll Posted August 11, 2019 Posted August 11, 2019 I appreciate the profound discussions that came out of this thread but I think it is time that we now spiral back on topic again. If you wish to carry on discussing eastern philosophies etc then that would be a topic suited in our Spirituality forum 👍
Recommended Posts