words

Seen from the eyes of someone who's practicing towards that (getting in touch with a deity/entity), all that is true, valid and valuable. From where I am looking, is one speaking to itself, taking the most understandable form, or speaking in the most understandable language for the person within which that dialogue happens. something like...customized message/context/metaphor. I don't know if that makes sense in the way I word it.

that what makes you (wish to) try really hard to not do your best is also a part of who you are right now. so trying really hard not to do your best is your current best. does that make sense?

yes. everyone is doing their best, in every moment. they are their best version of themselves for that moment. that doesn't mean there isn't potential for better/growing/evolving. it just means that for this moment in time and space, this is how much of that potential has unfolded. no one will ever choose to be less of what they can be. for instance, we could consider someone as being lazy or ignorant or arrogant or stubborn or whatever and be tempted to think that they could be better. we'd be right and wrong at the same time. we'd be wrong because in this moment, laziness or ignorance or arrogance or stubbornness or whatever, is what it's here now, is part of the blend of who/what that person is and factors in their choices, in their way of speaking and behaving. for right now, that's the best they can be. we'd be right because there is indeed potential for that to change, to be harmonized. a bud can't be an opened flower in the bud stage. it has the potential to open and be a flower, but it's a bud right now and we can't blame it for that. understanding that is the seed of compassion. we tend to be more understanding with kids and animals, because with them is easier for us to accept that this is the best they can be/do right now. we see their potential and accept them as they are right now at the same time. i don't know why we don't do the same with everyone and everything, including ourselves. probably because that's the best we can do right now, as who we are at this moment. enjoy life

death might be put in place to activate the 'under pressure' seeking. it's hard to argue (for me, at least) that death is an important piece in the mechanism that drives the seeking. 'what death is' or 'what happens after death' are nagging questions running on repeat in one's background, that give birth to cascades of other questions for which one is compelled to find answers. one would have to take the steps of understanding what life is and who/what is living and dying, to get close to understanding what death is and what comes next. the definition of death and view of the afterlife keeps changing with one's definition and understanding of life. what you believe is true. what you believe is what it is for you. it's like a system of lenses for perceiving and thus experiencing reality. what you believe is your choice. that's the freedom. life unfolds as it does and what it is flows as it flows. what one believes doesn't change that. however, what one believes shapes their experience of it. in life, in death, in the afterlife and in every possible dimension and level of reality where there are still beliefs in place. enjoy life

manners are a cultural thing. same seems to be the concept of ignoring, because these long 'i'm ignoring you' posts don't fit my understanding of what ignoring means.

what a creative pick up line/story, white rabbit! what's the success rate?

what would qualify as proof? pictures, samples, afterlife artifacts?

Another tangent question: do you think that what afterlife is (like) would be revealed to one, once they would really understand what life is?

I like the sound play in this: 'when you make eyes in place of an eye', because if I say it out loud, I hear, alternatively: (when you make) I's in place of an I or I's in place of an eye or eyes in place of an I It would seem my mind likes it in all these forms, because it keeps playing it my head and shuffling meanings.

Tangent question: do you think that one's view of afterlife factors in their experience of afterlife?

are you trying to become intimidating? if yes, you know the way: do or do not. there is no try.

1155

keep connected. be more a conductor than a reservoir. question: what's your defense mechanism? more like a rabbit that counts on running, more like a turtle that hides in the shell or more like a frizzle lizard? all those eat up energy and block energy from coming in. turning them off for a while feels refreshing because it replenishes what was consumed. that's why what we perceive as safe places feel most restful. same goes for other mechanisms that we keep in place and are fueled by our own energy and block the energy intake. take for instance those that are afraid of energy vampires. more they are afraid, more they put up protections, more drained they feel, more they are convinced that something bad is going on. try to get a sense of where is your energy going, what is it feeding. you can look outside or inside, you'll get at the same conclusion and is always an inner 'consumer' and more often than not has to do with separation, with the safety bubble. even when you give energy to something outside of you, what you are really using it for (via the outward world) is to close an inner (perceived) gap. rather than trying to alleviate the symptoms, look into the root cause.

you already communicate with it plenty, you just have to realize that you do and how. don't expect thoughts to shoot out from your cat's head into yours. it's not so verbal. while you're trying to hear words from your cat, you might overlook the real communication already happening. it can be in words too, but that's more like your own 'translation' of the energy the cat emits.

Strong ego without ego. how to. well, by not taking it/(your idea of) yourself too serious. how can one have resolve without ego. more you see the ego for what it is (or isn't), more you realize it's not really the ego's resolve in the first place. Don't take my word for it, just check it for yourself. look into where does the resolve come from. not just a step back, like the branch from where it grew, go to the root of the tree. something like...the ego's resolve is the donkey's focus on the dangling carrot and determination to reach it. but where does that want come from in a donkey, what's that wanting? one could see ego as the function that makes us think that we think. the result is a nice feeling, the feeling of existing and being autonomous. being strong or weak, it's again, the ego's impression about itself, because it's only the ego who's concerned with stuff like that about itself.

I think it's not so much an attribute of a person, but a relation between the intimidating and the intimidated. It goes hand in hand with self-doubt/insecurity. Something in the intimidating person strikes a chord, rubs on the insecurity (be it conscious or unconscious) of the one feeling intimidated. The first thing that it points out is that there is insecurity, thus a self-confident person will appear, by contrast, as being intimidating. it's in general about contrast. for an introvert, an extrovert will seem intimidating and vice versa. for a geek, body builder might seem intimidating and vice versa, depending on who's 'territory' they meet. Now there are people who are generally intimidating and I think the measure of one's 'intimidating effect' has to do with how real said self-confidence is, if it's rooted in the core or if it's an outer shell. Most people see through it. I mean, everyone knows that bullies are actually afraid, no? It's more a matter of 'i'd rather not have to deal with him', than being really intimidated around them for most people. it's why they go for the weak, who's own great insecurity will make the bully seem really intimidating. There are also those people with...don't know how to put it...invasive eyes, maybe? Those that seem to be looking in your soul when they talk to you. Those are generally intimidating too and the measure of it is how badly one doesn't want to be seen/read. Stares are generally intimidating, because they feel like piercing through the facade most people wear and that shakes one's sense of safety a bit. Just think of how often people get punched for staring with the reason 'what are you looking at?' There are probably people who are more prone to being intimidated, like for instance those that were raised with shaming or guilting as part of their upbringing. from my own experience, I can turn it on and off, depending on the circumstances. Just like Teddy, I can't tell exactly what changes. it feels like it has to do with 'emitting' some sort of friendly kind of vibe that overrides it. something like the lolly pop before the shot at the drs office.

the thing with all scriptures, teachings and traditions is that they are metaphors, rather than definitions. they all try to be as clear and suggestive as possible, but there's a limit they can not transcend, as what they talk about is prior to words and concepts. another thing is that they're conveyed in terms and concepts specific to that time's understanding. regardless of the knowing from where it sprung, the language and the concepts belong to that era. what i mean by that is that for modern man 'light' means something different than it meant for someone living in the time the daoism emerged, even if defines the same thing. something like man's relation to light went from solar clocks to solar panels and there's a lot of data in between that the mind works with when reading the word. What I mean to say is that one would have to read light or light of lights with the mind of someone living in that time, to have a better grasp of what it means in the context. Rather than filtering it through what you know about light and what it means for you, try contemplate the play of light and dark on something simple and old like this to me that's like getting a bit closer to the mind that came up with the metaphor and that gives me a better chance to get it. I don't know, for me personally, the simple things always bear more insight than analyzing and connecting intricate networks of dots. In short, how should one think of angels in relation to Daoism? there is no should. however you see it, that's your starting point. it'll clarify in time. for you. in your own framework.

Yes. I think it's impossible otherwise. I understand/make sense of everything (including traditions and their teachings) through my own experience. It's a matter of grasping a bit the model and it's dictionary, then one recognizes the same thing in all of them, as they all point to the same indescribably thing. all roads lead (or talk about the same) Rome kind of thing. the 10000 things do sound like standing for form, with the suggestion of great diversity. or it could stand for the...how to say it...the building blocks for form, the 'primordial genes' (not necessarily material, it could also mean concepts, potentials, whatever) of all form. also, you have the english word myriad that to everyone means great number or even countless. it also means 10000. i wonder what's with this number 10000 being used to represent indefinite multiplicity. I read the chapter in two parts too, just how it splits for me is different. It reads like a sandwich here. upper and lower buns are of tao The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled. Oh, unfathomable source of ten thousand things! Oh, hidden deep but ever present! I do not know from whence it comes. It is the forefather of the emperors. and the filling - pathways for seeing/understanding the tao (as presented in the buns). Untangle the knot, Soften the glare, Merge with dust. (untangle the knot -of 10000 things and their babies- to find their source, soften the glare/look through to see the deep hidden, merge with dust to eliminate distinction) These emperors (and their forefather), I still can't identify what they stand for (as in I can't recognize the corespondent in my model), i don't get the metaphor. maybe further reading will clarify some of it, if it comes up again, or at least will provide a larger context.

before being able to go further, i need a bit of help to calibrate my dictionary and align it with yours. to get the language and the general understanding of it. for instance, the 'ten thousand things'. what does it stand for? is there a general agreement over what it means (as in most people here know it means this or that when they see it) or each reader has their own interpretation of it? or the 'emperors'. I see that you've discussed the forefather's possible meaning, but didn't do so about what emperor means, so I figured that maybe you all understand and agree upon what emperor means in this context. I am asking because I don't know what I don't know, so maybe for a taoist the emperors refer to...i don't know....the elements, or some other metaphorical or abstract thing like that. Can't it be both? noun and verb. or at least noun and verb? is it even possible to be just a noun or just a verb? even I, the way I perceive myself, I am both a noun and a verb. my name defines both me as a person (object, noun) and at the same time is the verb of being me. besides being a person, i am a continuous and unique 'action of being/living', a movement and a moving.

Ha! I haven't looked at the date of the last post. The conversation seemed to be flowing day after day, so I didn't realize I've bumped a dormant topic. but oh boy, did i have an extra long coffee with that chapter....and now going from being plenty serious and ready to engage in further conversation to a good laugh at myself. like unknowingly watching a recording of last year's super bowl and cheering as it would be a live broadcast. eh, well, I guess it was meant (for me) just to spark my interest and drag me in. plenty to explore around. there are no mistakes. thank you for the warm welcome.

Hello everyone. this topic is the reason I've created an account here. I've stumbled upon this community by chance and then browsing through it, this topic caught my interest. I can't say why as I am a total newbie to taoism and I am not at all familiar with it's scriptures, but here I am. I've felt like giving this disclaimer so you'll understand why my terminology or maybe even over all way of looking at it might look different than yours. I'm a fresh eye on this particular text and at the same time (to me) this text is speaking of the same truth all texts (and everything) point to. I've read all of the above interpretations and they all bring something to the study table. I want to add what reading the text evokes in me, besides what has been already said. Not exalting the gifted prevents quarreling I see the 'obvious' interpretation of exalting creating some sort of hierarchy and hierarchy creating aim points and thus bringing about quarreling, to continuously redefine positions. Like in a wolves family or like all the politics going on behind scenes in arts, science and every field one can think of, including the spirituality scene. Besides that one, the message I personally (as in for my own good) get from it is about exalting the (perceived) inner gifted. Something like..if I put my inner wise/smart/talented/whatever on a pedestal, I'll tend to talk more and listen less, show more and observe less. Feeling wise/smart/talented/whatever feels good and safe, so there will be a natural tendency to keep it in place. That often leads to disagreement with anything that questions it, which is perceived as a threat. Not collecting treasures prevents stealing Quite logic. Besides the logical and clear message, again, i find something in it for me. Here I hear 'stealing' as appropriating something (more like concepts, ideas, traits, etc than material things) that doesn't really belong, taking something that is not rooted in/the result of one's experience, exploration and understanding, and adding it over one's self, thus clouding the self. Something like the risk of collecting (metaphorical) treasures is dishonesty towards one's self. Collecting treasures is an outwards drive, away from the self and (metaphorically) stealing leads to building a 'false version' of self. This ^ ties in with the next verse Not seeing desirable things prevents confusion of the heart. I see here the desirable things as being the above treasures. Be it material, or an experience, or an understanding or a state, or whatever, if one sees it, it's outside one's (core/true) self and it drags the heart away from one's self, thus confusing it. (I understand that ultimately there's no outside, but...language). The wise therefore rule by emptying hearts and stuffing bellies, by weakening ambitions and strengthening bones. Emptying the heart I see as not 'stocking up' in the heart. i perceive the heart more like a channel than an archive, so emptying it is keeping it open and clear, making space for what is here now in every now. Stuffing bellies didn't make me think of eating eating, it made me think of hara and hara as a reservoir to be fed and nurtured. In this context, weakening ambitions vs strengthening bones, made me think of curbing the rush to see the house built and taking the time to prepare the ground and have a solid foundation, upon which the house will grow. If men lack knowledge and desire, then clever people will not try to interfere. tough one, this verse. i think is tough because of the constrictions and at the same time versatility of language. I can't really interpret it in a general way, I'll just say that to me, the image of the mind trying to stay in the driver's seat came to mind when I've read it. I wouldn't try driving unless I'd think I know how to, no? So in a way, I see here 'men' and 'clever people' as being the same people, with the clever people being men's idea about themselves. I don't know if you've ever felt that you (your mind, thinking process, perpetual analyzing) are getting in your own way. I did/do and this verse evokes exactly that sense in me. (the people reading the secret and attempting to manipulate their lives based on that knowledge also briefly flew through my mind and i found it funny) If nothing is done, then all will be well to me this refers more to taking credit for doing, rather than simply doing. everything will be done either way, but taking credit goes hand in hand with taking blame, the idea of doing right vs. doing wrong, what ifs and all that jazz. I'll learn to write shorter posts. in time. it's just that this is - weirdly and suddenly (because...out of nowhere) - interesting and exciting to me right now.

hey, it's me! journeying. here is where previous steps have led me to. for now, at least. I'd like to stay for a while with the dao bums, in their settlement. exchange. share. play, explore with you all. so far...veni, vidi, amavi so..knock, knock, knock. brave gatekeepers, I want in.