Daniel

@C T In buddhism is there a concept of being attached-to-detachment? finding the release from sense-pleasure-pleasurable? abandoning dogma becoming dogmatic? in your opinion are these concepts important for maintaining enlightenment potential?

Not directed to me, but, A reflection is both inverted and flat compared to the source of the reflection. If they are reflections of each other, an illusion of infinity is produced. Even so, the reflections are different, inverted and forever shrinking. It's like sitting in a house made of mirrors lacking any door. The only escape from the illusion is closing one's eyes and imagining everything that the reflections are NOT. The disillusioned result is finite.

What is dividing them? And I would very much appreciate a hint towards a solution? In your opinion, of course?

Can they be divided? Or maybe only denied?

The topic was: does everything have an inner-essence which is concealed? If so, what is concealing it? Is the inner-essence concealed in a vast potential field or is it fixed and predetermined to be revealed at a certain future time? The vast potential field is ruled out by process of elimination as the source of the concealment. Is "vast potential" as a concept inspiring? Sure, why not? Is the idea of past,present,and future united inspiring? Sure, why not? Is it true? Yes. Is it useful? Sometimes.

and its partner, the (somewhat?) unpopular opinion: felines are gods.

... natural beauty ...

Here's to many happy returns.

Unpopular opinion: To be enlightened is a burden.

You forgot about your spanking.

Sadly I don't know. Hopefully someone will have better advice for you than me. I'll try to pay attention to the thread and if I don't see any activity from any of the more knowledgeable folks, I'll see if I can find some other safe healthy options for you.

Get a good massage? Then drink a lot of water?

Which one is you? Kitty, bunny, or flamingo? Also a fun ice breaker at parties... depending on the crowd. The unpopular opinion is.... Sooner or later, everyone's a flamingo!

... assume the position ...

That's interesting to me. It's a completely different point of view from what I would expect. I thank you for that. Maybe I'll reread that section and apply what you're saying to it.

The proper response to any spanking: "Thank you may I have another."

@whocoulditbe?, I like the questions you are posing. And I also like that your screen-name is itself a question. Welcome to TheDaoBums. Sincerely,

Right! The general should, at least, be perceived as acting in harmony with the moral law. In my opinion, perception will always catch up to reality if the general is actually transgressing. That is the nature of transgressing moral law. But, I will avoid the temptation of setting up a pulpit and preaching about it.

If I understand what you're saying, applying it produces a paradox: "Misunderstand good and bad" = bad, nothing will help you. "Understanding there is no good nor bad" = good, everything will help you. "There is no good nor bad" = false? This sort of paradox is characteristic of mutually exclusive concepts. Extremes. When you say it's "crazy talk", I imagine two people arguing about a bowl. One person points to the bowl and says "it's a bowl, it's empty." Then the other person flips it and says, "it's a dome, it's full." And this arguing goes on and on, the bowl is flipping, flipping, flipping, and both people appear to be lunatics to any objective outside observer. Or perhaps it's an individual, and the concept they are considering is multi-layered, like a set of russian dolls. As they unpack each layer, they are presented with the positive image on the surface, and its inverted negative space on the interior. To any objective observer, it will appear crazy for the individual to inspect each layer outside and inside, endlessly looking for significance distinguishing between the inner and outer details. But good and bad don't really operate that way. Mutually exclusive concepts are like open and closed. If those same individuals sat down to have chat about a ball and cup or considered them independently, there would be no arguing. No crazy talk. No endless flipping and inspecting. The ball is obviously closed. The cup is obviously open. The ball will never be open. The cup will never be closed. The capability to flip any disadvantage into advantage so that "everything will help you" comes from clarity and flexibility. Both are required. Both, sequentially ( not simultaneously ). Unqualified "there is no good nor bad" obscures this. In order to exploit any and all disadvantages, the properties of the disadvantage need clear definition, not oblivion nor ambivalence. This clear defintion is like the the inner-most doll in the set of russian dolls, or the mould that is used to produce the set of bowls. That's the clarity which is requried. But after that, it is the intention behind their construction, in addition to the physical parameters which produces the clarity, the definition, the borders which are defining the circumstance. This is where flexibility is required. In the Art of War, when the general attacks with fire, the proper action is determined based how the enemy reacts. The general is lifting themselves out of their position in their mind, and placing themself into the opposing general's "shoes" to predict their state of readiness and whether the opposition will be able to use the fire to their own advantage. Evaluating good vs. bad is accomplished the same way in all other circumstances. When evaluating good and bad, the individual lifts themself up and out of their position and considers whether the concept is intended to be encouraged and adopted, or discouraged and shunned. When this evalutation is correct, both good and bad are always helpful. The good is helpful when it is adopted. The bad is helpful when it is shunned. Because of this a heirarchy is produced which resolves the paradox identified in the beginning of the post. Clarity encourages flexibility. Flexibility discourages clarity. Clarity is primary then flexibility. This, imo, cannot be flipped.

Thank you.

What's needed, IMO, are the reasons for going to war. I did not see that in the translation I read.

I see. "Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances" From the end of the chapter "weak and strong", does it actually say "infinite variety"?

It combines ... it includes ... conceals... progresses. Thus we balance.

It's all about perspective Different points of view I can see it both ways How about you?

Do you like the Giles translation? Do you feel like it Is consistently translating in harmony with the intention of the author?