S:C

The ‘idea’ is nothing but a subjective preference. It has no substantial basis. There is no ‘free will’. We are just prisoners of our own device. Bound to experience a show which script has already been written, with hardly probability to improvise apart from conditioning. ’I think therefore I am’ is nonsense in several ways. Why should thinking imply an existence of a separated self by a way of causality? That is just bonkers. Whatever runs through minds projection surface doesn’t tell one anything about existence and nonexistence. Intelligence is overrated. What use is a sword that cannot cut through emotions? Looking the other way might make you happier than interpreting what you do. Spiritual traditions don’t put enough emphasis on the heart. And heart is not simply emotions in chaos.

You think the double meaning was intended?

Great work at explaining this, thank you @Daniel!

Abstracted thoughts or perceptions, - my guess. I feel the need to explain this further after Apech confused look, but haven’t got the right words now.

Not sure I understand what you’re suggesting.

It’s really odd, how violence was used to help the hierarchy of state and church to gain souverainty over the claimed objective interpretation of the words of the Nazarene! Considering this, I wonder how one should ever utter a word and not expect to be misunderstood and turned into the opposite of the intended meaning? Which could be: Love, but without force. Well maybe I am wrong too, but alas I never claimed objectivity to begin with.

It’s comforting to discuss this without having to expect the inquisition knocking at your door, thanks! Honestly, I ain’t sure if I understand that bible chapter you mentioned fully @Salvijus… but maybe that isn’t necessary.

Before the father we appear all similar in our appearance, no? I don’t get the reroute around status in this topic, maybe I‘ve missed something happening for someone? Could it be that you’re overthinking, @Salvijus? Maybe you have given something too much weight, that never was meant this way? Why people ask strangers for their job, is because often that gives a good account where someone’s values and talents are. People spent a lot of their time and it often transforms them in a special way, so for a stranger it helps to understand another stranger and his behavior better. It’s also a less personal question than religion, for example, where you don’t want to intrude or provoke different opinions and a fight following. As to men’s testicles… well… there’s been some interesting empirical data for apes, about what the size, form and feel can represent to their female partner. I won’t go into detail here, as it seems inconsiderate, but it’s easy to find. In the end it seems to represent not only the potential of the offspring, but an underlying energy of the carrier as well, e.g. how loyal the carrier is or how often he approaches other women than that he had chosen for offspring and a life together. To Jesus, status seemed irrelevant, indeed. I remember the tax collector, a rich guy but unpopular. Even he was treated good or even better, because he had an interest in his teaching and worldview. There’s the famous line of a rich guy going into heaven as probably as a camel through the hole of a needle. Maybe that settles the whole of the status issue? In your opinion, are Christ and Jesus to be seen separately? Was Mary pregnant twice, one with the Holy Spirit and then with Jesus as the offspring? The lines in the evangelists book leave that open to interpretation for me… edit: maybe marriage originally was something different than today?

Helpful, thanks!

Isn’t anyone? “Reading what is there” relies on “picking and choosing your meanings”, in my very humble opinion on this matter.

What @salaam123 said rang a distant bell for me… and reminded me of a novel. Protagonist there said, he doesn’t like the feeling of being loved, it’s egoistic, suffocatingly sweet and sticky, makes one grasp for air, - what he wanted was to love in vain but to attain little (maybe wrongly estimated) steps towards a possible fulfillment. Not sure if anyone follows. No, @Daniel, I don’t think he has been redundant but the language barrier, words and meanings lost in translation, who knows. Along the lines of: no peace as in a lovey dovey harmonic union - where people magically change and adapt to a fruitful god wishful lifestyle in the way it would be done as a present to a or the deity - but in a way - through the sword - that nothing remains but that one. Being forced to giving up the parts that don’t belong. Getting empty, as others call it. Pervasive maybe, but to the right cause and origin. Who or what that ever is might be akin to perceiving something without senses. And the danger, grave danger… “a million candles burning for the help that never came”… no guarantees and just probabilities, no real prophecies, eh? Self shouldn’t be relinquished before time and never forced against the rhythm and one’s personal melody. Haven’t got the chance now to clear this into understandable words, might try later again, thanks.

So sorry, I thought I was at the gas station. My fault.

How is it possible that ALL of you are so very sure of your empirical sense data perceptions and conceptualizations (while others are not)…. ???

I don’t have any answers. Sorry.

In my case it was a wild bird who checked on the fence if I was okay. 🤣

Thank you for explaining your point of view, @Nungali! I guess I understand you better now.

Are you not? Luminous blob? I am confused.

here you go, cat https://www.taoistic.com/taoteching-laotzu/taoteching-38.htm

Very much agree with your first observations and paragraphs. How should there be knowledge of the absolute? We may have conceptions about it in our own relative minds, no? Or perhaps you mean that all relative conceptions of the absolute together are the Absolute because they appear on the projection surface of mind?

Thanks, that’s probably the most helpful answer. I‘m also not sure what is kabbalistic ‘tradition’ and what is nungalis interpretation here…

What’s got the poor cow got to do with it?

It would seem that the differentiation between ‚four worlds‘ is arbitrary and not necessarily a consequence of the diagramm. Why are several spheres a world? Is this intuitive or experiential gnowledge for you? (Seems I‘d need to take a look at that book of yours, bes! Seems very complex.)

Are all three pillars ‚humane‘? (As in residing in a human spirit?)

How can there be any deviance from the principle (the dao part) anyhow?