SirPalomides

Neat topic. My normal handwriting is horrible so the prospect of doing calligraphy fills me with dread, but I would like to learn. It is of course considered a supreme art form in Sinosphere countries. In Vietnam in recent times calligraphers have been working with Latin letters with results that, to my untrained eye at least, are beautiful.

When I want “so bad it’s good” I’ll take an hour and a half to watch Death Wish 3. 600 page books, no thanks.

The PRC consulate in Osaka thought this was a good idea to post on Twitter

The Chimera, by Gustave Moreau

I think I like Gentileschi’s best because she actually looks like she’s doing the tough work of sawing a man’s head off, whereas Caravaggio’s Judith is trying not to stain her dress.

I’m really confused. You know the guy is a huckster and, worst of all, a bad writer, yet you still think he may be on to something, to the extent that your read his 600 page book? Don’t you think there are better things to do with your time? With all the teachings and advice out there, some good, some bad, much available for free , why fixate on this one?

I have read this and several Baba Yaga stories as collected by Afanasiev. I love fairy tales generally and the Russian ones are full of so much wonderful strangeness and humor.

Vasilissa the Beautiful (leaving Baba Yaga's hut) by Ivan Bilibin

Ah, the "Tin Yat Lineage" guy who charges $300 for a remote "ordination", I didn't realize that was his blog. That explains a lot.

After finishing a long program of mundane, job-related study, I want to get back to finishing a novel I'm writing and planning another one.

You know that purple demon in the corner of your vision who keeps telling you to kill your neighbors and sit comfortably? Well listen to him about the second part.

Saw this review on Amazon- I wonder how accurate it is. If it is, then I'll pass on this book!

Welcome! I hope everything is going well in Goa.

Holy busty blonde martyr Jeff, pray for us

Likudniks and Americans betraying and sabotaging each other? Sounds great.

Note that he says “this may be of interest” so when he gets called out for posting this stuff he can say, “I just thought it was interesting, I didn’t say I agreed with all of it.” I’ve seen that silly game many times.

Let me guess, everything is a Jewish plot blah blah blah

"Ye/you" are plural- nominative and accusative, respectively. "Thy" is singular possessive. When you're recording big revelations for everyone to read, make sure the pronouns line up. Other than that, welcome!

I'm not. Any recommendations?

I wonder how much, if any, this has in common with the Platonic theory of soul (which was inherited in Christian spirituality).

There also accounts by ex-Christian Science members watching their loved ones die horribly from curable diseases because of the sect's opposition to any medical treatment apart from their own methods.

I recognize that there are significant differences between Platonism and Buddhism; the only way I am comparing them is with regards to the levels of truth. While form and emptiness are inseparable, there is a distinction between the ultimate truth (emptiness of phenomena) and provisional truth. And while the provisional truth can be a stepping stone to grasping the ultimate truth, it must be transcended. When Buddhists say "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" they are talking about a perspective transcendent of, even if inclusive of, relative phenomena. Emptiness is perceived by looking through beyond the phenomena. I admit I am perhaps arbitrarily setting tantric Buddhism aside for the moment, as it does complicate the question. Tantra aside, Buddhism generally does not take much interest in the particulars of flora and fauna, weather patterns, etc. except as symbols and metaphors. Animals, plants, and landscapes have no inherent beauty in any Indian Buddhist texts I've seen- if someone can produce texts to the contrary I'd be glad to see them. Of course nothing has inherent anything- it's all impermanent and has no abiding self. Even worse, animals are seen as a realm of torment, condemned to ignorance and suffering until they can attain a better rebirth. Humanity itself is treasured only because it is only as a human that one can become a Buddha. Some Chinese Buddhists talk about Confucianism as a "human vehicle"- it is good for assuring a human rebirth. But ultimately we must get beyond the human birth as well. Whereas for Confucians (and I think Daoists too) we should just strive to be more and more human- humanity is the great third power between heaven and earth and its depths are inexhaustible. And Daoism, while recognizing the constant flux of everything, takes much greater pleasure in these fleeting instants. Li Bai writing about drifting clouds and calling geese- not just as metaphors, but as inherently wonderful things- isn't very Buddhist. Some Chan poets wrote this way too but I would contend they did so as Chinese scholars formed in Confucian-influenced traditions, not so much as Buddhists. I think there are real differences overall between the two approaches. I don't think they are irroncilable, though, and of course everything I have said is arguable. We are dealing with some subtle stuff here.

I think Taomeow hit on something important when she mentioned xiantian and houtian. These terms are sometimes translated like "pre-celestial" or "post-celestial"- some mistakenly take this in a linear, temporal way, but the terms are more akin to the Platonic distinction of the intelligible/ ideal realm versus the sensible/ physical realm, or the Buddhist distinction between ultimate and relative truth. Some have translated them with Western philosophical terms like "a priori" and "a posteriori", or "noumena" and "phenomena". The difference, I think, is that Daoists (and Confucians) do not privilege one realm over the other. That is, in philosophies like Platonism or Buddhism, the phenomenal world can be seen as a trap or a veil, obstructing perception of ultimate reality; or it can be seen as a ladder or stepping stone to that reality, if contemplated correctly. In any case, though, the point is to get beyond this phenomenal world to reach these eternal, unchanging truths- the form of the Good, emptiness, Buddha nature, etc. I think the Daoist/Confucian view, embodied very much in the I Ching, is that there is no "beyond"- the fullness of reality subsists precisely in these shifting, impermanent, imperfect phenomena, and we get to this reality by no means other than embracing and diving more fully into them; and moreover, we study the more abstract principles not to get beyond their temporal manifestations but precisely to understand and work with those temporal manifestations better. I think this is the main reason Hegel was so ignorantly dismissive of Chinese philosophy, after he read some translations from Lao Zi, Analects, and I Ching- he didn't see those abstract metaphysical discussions that he considered so essential to "real" philosophy. (Now experts in Buddhism or Platonism will likely take some issue with the way I have presented this, and I admit that the distinctions I am drawing are not always so neat, so please be patient with me- I think it could be fairly argued that the differences are not always significant in practice) And at the risk of beating a dead horse I will note again some differences between Indian Buddhist and Chinese Daoist/Confucian aesthetics- Buddhists tend to prefer symmetry, sometimes along geometric lines, the Chinese philosophies prefer balance of disparate elements. All the Buddhas have the same appearance, the same personality, throughout time and space; Daoist immortals often remain quirky individuals. Zhuangzi's praise of gnarled trees and hunchbacks doesn't really have a place in Buddhist philosophy. Of course as Buddhism adapted to Chinese culture there was plenty of adaptation of Chinese aesthetics too, so don't take this as an absolute statement.

While mind-only language has found its way into some Daoist expressions, I think overall the Daoist approach to the phenomenal world is to treat it as real, albeit in constant flux. Dream and waking are both facets of the same reality. Landscapes are not expressions of karma; animals are not ignorant, deluded incarnations (though Buddhist influence has made inroads here in some Daoist sects).